Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
<snip> Mate, I don't want to be nasty here, but I think there's an irony going on somewhere in this statement
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:And:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
quote:Lots and lots of works with plenty of dire warnings that if we don't do them we might not have a place in Heaven.
"Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it."
quote:If I was more Biblically knowledgeable I would probably have other more acute examples.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been carried out in God."
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:What is being taught, I think, is that we are right with God only because of what he has done, not because of anything we have done. We can have complete confidence that we are now with Christ in heaven.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
quote:No self-respecting c(C)atholic would disagree with this, in that all good and any motivation towards good comes from and is achieved by God. Don't know what you call it, but we call it the work of God's grace producing faith, from which flows the enaction of faith in works. (Which is why I say we create a false dichotomy between faith and works; the two are inseparable, because faith itself is a work infused by the grace of God, it's a verb, not just a noun.)
What is being taught, I think, is that we are right with God only because of what he has done, not because of anything we have done. We can have complete confidence that we are now with Christ in heaven.
Good works are what we do now that we are in Christ. They have been prepared in advance for us by God, that is, even what good we do has already (in one sense) been done by God.
quote:So, 2+2=5...
This working out of what God's grace really means is the basis of boundless joy and assurance for those who trust in Jesus and his death!
] quote:I meant to add after this: We forget in all this salvation stuff that it's not ultimately about us, and how we can be saved, but about God. It's about how God made us for himself, and our hearts will always be restless until they rest in God.
f an expression of salvation ignores this overarching fact, it is falling short of the whole truth. I feel your "boundless joy and assurance" is like salvation for salvation's sake, with a focus on the one saved (me, you, whoever) and on the moment of salvation. Which is a very individualistic and egotistical view. We can never forget that our ultimate purpose as the Corporate Body of Christ (and therefore as individuals within it who are dearly loved by Christ) is to "glorify God and enjoy him forever." [I aint forgotten my Westminster Shorter Catechism! ]
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Sorry Gordon, this may or may not be going off at a tangent, but can we have complete confidence that we won't reject our faith later in life (apostatize)?
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
We can have complete confidence that we are now with Christ in heaven.
quote:Actually, Gordon, the claim you seem to be making here is not "the biblical view" (more on this in a sec), but the Reformed view. Especially when you tack on:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
That will be the Roman view Ingo is pointing you towards there.
The biblical view is well summarized here:
quote:
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
quote:That last sentence sounds an awful lot like the predestination confidence taught by Calvin. Meanwhile, back to "the biblical view." Biblical scholarship has demonstrated rather convincingly that there are a plethora of views represented in the Bible. (See especially J.D. Dunn Unity and Diversity in the New Testament). To claim any one view as "the biblical view" is rather a red herring in this day and age.
What is being taught, I think, is that we are right with God only because of what he has done, not because of anything we have done. We can have complete confidence that we are now with Christ in heaven.
quote:There is no such thing as "the biblical view". There is "the Roman opinion of what the biblical view is" and "the Gordo opinion of what the biblical view is" and "the gnpcb.org opinion of what the biblical view is" and so on ad nauseam. This facile idea that "well you have your tradition of men, but WE believe the BAH-BULL" is self-serving, reality-denying steer feces. Having it set out so beautifully in two lines is really too too much.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
That will be the Roman view Ingo is pointing you towards there.
The biblical view is well summarized here
quote:I don't think that's necessarily the case. The Arminian position, as I understand it, is that faith is the result of the gift of grace which can freely be rejected.
Originally posted by Macrina:
Problem with discussions like this is that somehow they always end up bringing in the issue that if all good works come from God's grace acting on us then the very act of deciding to follow God must be facilitated by God pouring out his grace upon us to allow it.
This leads us on to the rather shaky ground of predestination.
quote:Actually, I think Gordon has affirmed in the past that he is a pretty strong Calvinist so it probably isn't "sounds like" but is- Calvinism, that is.
Originally posted by phoenix_811:
quote:Actually, Gordon, the claim you seem to be making here is not "the biblical view" (more on this in a sec), but the Reformed view. Especially when you tack on:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
That will be the Roman view Ingo is pointing you towards there.
The biblical view is well summarized here:
quote:
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
quote:That last sentence sounds an awful lot like the predestination confidence taught by Calvin. Meanwhile, back to "the biblical view." Biblical scholarship has demonstrated rather convincingly that there are a plethora of views represented in the Bible. (See especially J.D. Dunn Unity and Diversity in the New Testament). To claim any one view as "the biblical view" is rather a red herring in this day and age.
What is being taught, I think, is that we are right with God only because of what he has done, not because of anything we have done. We can have complete confidence that we are now with Christ in heaven.
quote:Now I know that by the context "work out your own salvation" refers mostly to the fact that Paul can't be there to hold the hand of the young church at Phillippi. But it also seems to say salvation isn't necessarily present and they need to work on it. Now I know this is perfectly logical to an Orthodox Christian, but how does it fit for those who believe in a salvation event? When a person says those magic words "I repent and accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior" salvation is not assured? If works don't start happening it didn't "take"? Or, poor you, even if you desire salvation you are not among the Elect- too bad, so sad? Or you are being contrarily smug and sinful in your sense of salvation and therefore dropped the ball and lost you salvation?
Philippians 2:12-13 12Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:I imagine that if we put our trust in the Lord Jesus Christ (and central to having that trust is acknowledging that he is indeed 'Lord', not just some dude with a neat line in fish multiplication) then it ought to flow forth in doing what he commands, which is to "Love one another". I conclude that the person who doesn't love, and/or who apostasizes, demonstrates that they never really had saving faith.
1:6 And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
quote:Are you saying that other's positions are not biblical then? You could just as well indicate you own view by saying, "In my view" or "In my understanding." Not sure what you mean by the last sentence at all.
I'll keep saying "the" biblical view not because I haven't heard the objections that 'there's no such thing', but because it's a shorthand way of describing my own position in contrast to the positions held by others. The details of particular discussions will show up whether or not the claim that there is a bibilical view is coherent, or not.
quote:Then you'll either have to accept that others will conclude that your arrogating to your own opinions the soubriquet "the biblical view" is the action of an arrogant, pompous twit or you'll sensibly change the description to something like "my view" or, at a pinch, "my view, which I believe is consonant with Sacred Scripture".
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I'll keep saying "the" biblical view not because I haven't heard the objections that 'there's no such thing', but because it's a shorthand way of describing my own position in contrast to the positions held by others.
quote:I think the general medium-sized-c catholic* position is that we are supposed to respond to God insofar as we are able to. E.g. at the most basic level everyone is aware of some concept of Good, and since we believe that God=Good, our response to our awareness of good is a kind of response to God.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
Arguably, these people are not justified -- despite their best efforts they live sinful lives. Arguably God ordains that this should be the case, that some people should be denied justification. This is logically coherent, but I don't see how a benevolent God can show such inequity to his creatures.
Can anybody shed any light on this?
quote:Gordon - the definite article is exclusive, no matter how many ""'s you put round it. Your position is either:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I'll keep saying "the" biblical view not because I haven't heard the objections that 'there's no such thing', but because it's a shorthand way of describing my own position in contrast to the positions held by others. The details of particular discussions will show up whether or not the claim that there is a bibilical view is coherent, or not.
quote:Both "Roman" sources (make that non-Zwinglian/Calvinist, poor Lutherans...) make extensive use of scripture, but hey, if more scripture is what you want, more scripture is what you get: "Scripture Catholic" on Justification.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
That will be the Roman view Ingo is pointing you towards there.
The biblical view is well summarized here
quote:Closer to the second. I'm also making the claim that the biblical view is not private property, endlessly under a cloud of doubt and misunderstanding but accessible to the church of God.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Gordon - the definite article is exclusive, no matter how many ""'s you put round it. Your position is either:
- you're right and everyone else is wrong,
- your stated position is your interpretation of Scripture, and is open for discussion.
Which is it?
quote:Sorry, this would be less confusing if reworded as
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I'm also making the claim that the biblical view is not private property, endlessly under a cloud of doubt and misunderstanding but accessible to the church of God.
quote:How very post-modern of you.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
There is no such thing as "the biblical view". There is "the Roman opinion of what the biblical view is" and "the Gordo opinion of what the biblical view is" and "the gnpcb.org opinion of what the biblical view is" and so on ad nauseam.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Well, whether or not the RCC is the whole of the church of God or only a part of it, historically the vast majority of the Church has not been Calvinist. So if the Biblical view is the view accessible to the Church, then it is rather unlikely that the Biblical view is Calvinism.
Originally posted by Gordon:
"I'm also making the claim that the biblical view is not private property, endlessly under a cloud of doubt and misunderstanding by others. Rather, the biblical view is accessible to the church of God."
I think Trisagion and Ingo's view would be that the Roman church is the church of God.
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
So if the Biblical view is the view accessible to the Church, then it is rather unlikely that the Biblical view is Calvinism.
quote:No, you will be happy to know that this is not how I define the church. The church is God's saints gathered around the Lord Jesus, at this very moment and on into eternity.
Unless of course you're going to define the Church as "Calvinists and no-one else". But that would be a bit circular, now...
quote:The alternative is to say that most of the Church is wrong. But how can the meaning of Scripture be said to be accessible to the Church if most of the Church can't understand it?
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
So if the Biblical view is the view accessible to the Church, then it is rather unlikely that the Biblical view is Calvinism.
quote:Gordon, I have no theoretical objection to calling something the "biblical view." But I don't think that you have demonstrated that justification by faith is the biblical view.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
"I'm also making the claim that the biblical view is not private property, endlessly under a cloud of doubt and misunderstanding by others. Rather, the biblical view is accessible to the church of God."
quote:I've always thought that this aspect of Calvinism illustrates the great difficulty we have in holding to the simple belief that God will save us.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I conclude that the person who doesn't love, and/or who apostasizes, demonstrates that they never really had saving faith.
quote:Gordon, as you can see, Jesus himself explicitely says that the judgement shall take place based upon what individuals actually did - without mentioning what they believed.
31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
quote:There is no way around it. At least no "biblical" way.
Originally posted by Demas:
I am told that my faith is real if I love and that people who love evangelise and visit widows. Perhaps if I evangelise and visit widows then I will prove to myself, my church and God that I love and thus that my faith is real.
And back we slide into conditional works-based salvation...
quote:Justification by faith may be the orthodox view of protestant Christianity, but in my view protestantism has never adequately accounted for these kinds of statements.
"For unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of the heavens.” Matthew 5:20.
“A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things. 36“But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” Matthew 12.35-27
"No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments." Matthew 19.16
At the completion of the age angels will go forth and separate the wicked from out of the midst of the righteous. Matthew 13:49.
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22“Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ Matthew 7.21-23
“If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 9“As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. 10“If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love. John 15.6-10
“And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last. Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie." Revelation 22.12-15
quote:It's certainly good news for the 2/3 of the planet who aren't Christians.
Originally posted by Demas:
As an aside - Justinian: would you classify the message you are drawing from the passage above (that we will be judged and sent to heaven or hell based on whether we have done enough good deeds in this life) as good news?
quote:I'd be interested to see if you really believe that when, for example, it is applied to the gracious encounter with the divine in liturgy and particularly communion - itself a microcosmic representation of the human-divine encounter in salvation. If a child reaches out her/his hands to receive communion because in his/her encounter with God in biblical teaching, family life and liturgy, then I administer that touch of God to her. She has recognized her need of a touch of God. He reaching out of hands is not a work but a response. Yet I suspect her response wouldn't receive the act of communion because she hasn't shown cerebral understanding of the Lord's Supper and all it does/doesn't entail. It may be a tangent, but I had a furious stand-up row with your boss on this matter once, and it seems to me to lie or close to the heart of the Calvinist/Other Christian divide.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
It's only arrogant to claim that something is "the biblical view" if some kind of merit attaches to having worked out what it is. But my view is that a child is more likely to understand what the Bible is saying than a theologian of many degrees.
quote:Most of the churches on earth are right on most things—hence the ecumenical creeds. No churches are right on all things, I suspect. And even Calvin didn't think you needed to be a Calvinist on predestination in order to be a christian (I certainly don't).
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The alternative is to say that most of the Church is wrong. But how can the meaning of Scripture be said to be accessible to the Church if most of the Church can't understand it?
quote:(italics added)
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
<snip> Preoccupation with my own good works as a means of assurance means that I am looking at the wrong thing—myself rather than Christ.
quote:Hey Zappa. I think Demas was suggesting that there were. In my opinion the later puritans in the 17th century went down this track a little too far.
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:(italics added)
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
<snip> [qb]Preoccupation with my own good works as a means of assurance means that I am looking at the wrong thing—myself rather than Christ.
Are there people who are preoccupied with something called "works" "as a means of assurance."
quote:Mate, I don't want to be nasty here, but I think there's an irony going on somewhere in this statement
originally posted by the Zappa:
Whatever "works" are, and I think the word is a "process linguistic" with very little real meaning
quote:I'm screwed.
Originally posted by Justinian:
Today's reading is taken from the gospel of Matthew, chapter 25 verses 31-46
quote:Gordon, as you can see, Jesus himself explicitely says that the judgement shall take place based upon what individuals actually did - without mentioning what they believed.
31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
In other words, the biblical view as expressed by Jesus of Nazareth, the Son, rather than Saul of Tarsus, is that salvation shall be decided on what was actually done - i.e. Works.
Jesus himself, when outlining the criteria that will be used for the judgement above says nothing about faith.
Why then do you say that The Biblical View™ is that salvation is through faith alone? Clearly there is strong biblical support from Jesus himself that salvation is through works.
If you were to call it the Gordon Cheng view, I don't think anyone would object - but to call it The Biblical View™ is to leave out large and important sections of the bible - and those from Jesus himself rather than Saul of Tarsus.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:No nastiness inferred ... I presume you're suggesting that "process linguistic" is a slightly obscure term
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
<snip> Mate, I don't want to be nasty here, but I think there's an irony going on somewhere in this statement
? It's an attempt to turn into an adjectival phrase the media notion that we can all fall too easily into "process language." Words like "works" and "personal lord and saviour" become vacuous syllables - some might call them "vain repetitions" - when bandied around with out referece to application in the here and now. So, in other words, what the hell is "a work?"
quote:I guess it can't hurt asking Mary to put in a good word then?
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I'm screwed.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
quote:Do you personally know with complete assurance whether you are the most dreadful hypocrite or whether you have integrity?
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Now my good works (or lack thereof) may well prove that have integrity or, alternatively, that I am the most dreadful hypocrite and am going to get it in the neck come judgement day. But the only basis for assurance I have is the cross of Christ, to which I'm called on to respond by faith issuing in good works.
quote:The Virgin praying for the screwed. There's an irony there.
Originally posted by AdamPater:
quote:I guess it can't hurt asking Mary to put in a good word then?
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I'm screwed.
quote:That's not the half of it! and there are several similar statements in Paul, eg. from 2 Corinthians 5
Originally posted by Freddy:
I agree with Justinian. This is just one of several similar statements by Jesus. For example:
[QUOTE]
8< many excellent statements of our Lord snipped 8<
quote:and this zinger from John in Revelation 20:
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.
quote:<italics mine>
12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. 13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
quote:If we are to be judged on our deeds then how would that help?
Originally posted by AdamPater:
quote:I guess it can't hurt asking Mary to put in a good word then?
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I'm screwed.
quote:Because praying to Mary is a deed?
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:If we are to be judged on our deeds then how would that help?
Originally posted by AdamPater:
quote:I guess it can't hurt asking Mary to put in a good word then?
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I'm screwed.
quote:I understand how you have this idea from Paul, but where does Jesus teach it?
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I believe it is absolutely true that we will be judged accoring to what we have done. That is why I am so thankful that not only am I judged, but I am completely forgiven for all by trusting in the work of Jesus completed at the cross.
quote:Thus, your entire faith rests on choosing a sense of the word "judgement" against the clear and unequivocal context of multiple passages in scripture? How very - what was the word you used again, ah yes - biblical of you.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
That is why I am so thankful that not only am I judged, but I am completely forgiven for all by trusting in the work of Jesus completed at the cross.
quote:And thus your faith furthermore rests on ignoring some basic points about the relation of time to eternity widely appreciated at least since Boethius (AD 524)...
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
If our names are written in the book of life before the foundation of the world, it follows that our entrance into the Heavenly city can't possibly be because of any decision we've made, or anything we've done, whether good or evil.
quote:Do you mean "but where do the authors of the Synoptic gospels refer to it?"
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:I understand how you have this idea from Paul, but where does Jesus teach it?
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I believe it is absolutely true that we will be judged accoring to what we have done. That is why I am so thankful that not only am I judged, but I am completely forgiven for all by trusting in the work of Jesus completed at the cross.
quote:I'm not sure, but I figure it can't hurt, and I like conversation.
Originally posted by Demas:
If we are to be judged on our deeds then how would that help?
quote:There are a number of ideas here, and I'm not sure which one you mean Freddy. The idea that we are judged according to what we've done? The idea that Jesus offers us unconditional forgiveness? The idea that his death was complete and sufficient to bring reconciliation with God?
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:I understand how you have this idea from Paul, but where does Jesus teach it?
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I believe it is absolutely true that we will be judged accoring to what we have done. That is why I am so thankful that not only am I judged, but I am completely forgiven for all by trusting in the work of Jesus completed at the cross.
. I think I am using judgement in one of the ways that others normally understand it. (definition #7 here). All I'm saying is that it falls on Christ not on us, when we place our trust in him.quote:The one that says that Jesus offers unconditional forgiveness without repentance and regardless of how we live.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:There are a number of ideas here, and I'm not sure which one you mean Freddy. The idea that we are judged according to what we've done? The idea that Jesus offers us unconditional forgiveness? The idea that his death was complete and sufficient to bring reconciliation with God?
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:I understand how you have this idea from Paul, but where does Jesus teach it?
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I believe it is absolutely true that we will be judged accoring to what we have done. That is why I am so thankful that not only am I judged, but I am completely forgiven for all by trusting in the work of Jesus completed at the cross.
quote:I might have been misreading you there, sorry. Has your final salvation (or lack thereof) anything whatever to do with any part of Jesus' actual judgement of your life in the widest possible sense (including absolutely all your physical, mental and spiritual activities)?
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I think I am using judgement in one of the ways that others normally understand it.
quote:I have no particular clue what John (or whoever else the writer of Revelation was) thought of eternity. I fail to see any significance whatsoever of that. John 1) was inspired (thus in principle able to write way beyond himself) and 2) was not discussing eternity directly here (and I didn't claim so). I was not attacking John, I was attacking your simplistic conclusion from his writings, which lacks any credibility since AD 524 at the latest...
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
As for John the writer of Revelation, are you saying that he shared Boethius' view of the nature of time and eternity (c. 524 AD)? More information please, before we move onto our Celebrity Squares segment...
quote:Oh, OK, ta. But did I say at any point that the offer of unconditional forgiveness occurs without these things? The offer of unconditional forgiveness precedes repentance and changed life, to be sure. But it also anticipates and produces repentance and changed life. If God forgives you unconditionally, you live a different life. IIf he doesn't, you don't.
Originally posted by Freddy:
The one that says that Jesus offers unconditional forgiveness without repentance and regardless of how we live.
quote:And this is talking about people who trusted him! How much more does the judgement made here by Jesus apply to the rest of the world.
23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing. 24 But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people 25 and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.
quote:"Expected" in the sense of asked for, demanded -- yes. "Expected" in the sense of figured that is what would happen? Hardly. "The very thing I don't want to do, that thing I do."
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I don't think Jesus (or Paul for that matter) expected any less than a complete turnaround in the lives of those who accepted God's free offer of forgiveness.
quote:Well for once, I am going to be the one arguing for complexity. Because we live in the overlap of ages—the present evil age, and the age to come—we experience in our bodies the reality of both. "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us". Yet at one and the same time, Paul is able to say: "You are witnesses, and God also, how holy and righteous and blameless was our conduct toward you believers."
Originally posted by Mousethief:
]"Expected" in the sense of asked for, demanded -- yes. "Expected" in the sense of figured that is what would happen? Hardly. "The very thing I don't want to do, that thing I do."
quote:I don't believe it's possible to unlock this complexity, this mystery, this side of final judgement.
1 Thessalonians 1:9 "For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, 10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come."
quote:
Colossians 3:3 For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:2 for 2.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Mate, break out the hymn books. We agreed on something! And, the Beatles are the greatest rock band of this age, or indeed of any age.
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
quote:Of course, the former in no way whatsoever follows from the latter, thanks to the crucial word "complete". It seems to be a popular "biblical" strategy, this insertion of words. I'm reminded of the "faith alone" doctrine, which also doesn't occur in scripture other than in being explicitly ruled out (James 2:24)... The "random" lesson of John 2:23-25 is rather that it is not sufficient to only believe in the Lord while He's performing miracles for one's benefit, if one then forgets Him as soon as He stops doing so. Doubting Thomases take note. (And of course it is an affirmation that the Lord knows what is in the hearts of men, which nobody has doubted.)
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Ingo, I believe that Jesus judges us as complete failures in every area of our moral existence. There are many places in the four gospels where Jesus exposes the failure and hypocrisy of his hearers, both individually and corporately.
quote:First, you separate "judgement" from any actual consequence. Whatever Jesus may say about your life or not, it doesn't matter for your salvation - which is probably for the best, since you say it will be entirely negative... That's what I was refering to with saying that you use the term "judgement" against both a straightforward reading of scripture context and the common use of the term (both imply that you will be judged according to what you have done, and face the appropriate consequences). Second, you are claiming that Jesus is applying a binary filter to your life: If you have "trusted in Jesus' death and resurrection" then you get pardoned no matter what, else it's straight off to hell. So you buy a gun and start shooting people at random, but since you do trust in Jesus' death and resurrection you are off to heaven? Great. I'm sure you'll get handed 72 raisins when you arrive in "heaven"...
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
This judgement by Jesus will be confirmed on the final day of judgement; but for those who have trusted in Jesus' death and resurrection, and received his Holy Spirit, the last word they hear will not be that word of judgement but our Lord's word of pardon and welcome.
quote:Care to elaborate about the relation of time to eternity appreciated since Boethius? (Separate thread?)
And thus your faith furthermore rests on ignoring some basic points about the relation of time to eternity widely appreciated at least since Boethius (AD 524)...
quote:The whole question, "is it faith/grace or is it works?" is completely illogical from an Orthodox POV. I think it's because, for the most part, we see salvation more in medical terms than juridical. The problem isn't that we're guilty; the problem is that we're terribly, terribly sick. It doesn't matter much whether the sickness is congenital, or whether it was brought on by our own foolish actions. In either case, the sickness is destroying us, and we need to be healed.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Now I know this is perfectly logical to an Orthodox Christian, but how does it fit for those who believe in a salvation event?
quote:And the admission that we both long for and strive for perfection.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Perfection is something we long for, not something we have already achieved. In the meantime, and as a result, being accounted righteous only through the death of Christ is something I cling to.
quote:Thanks. And I was beginning to feel better there for a moment.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:The Virgin praying for the screwed. There's an irony there.
Originally posted by AdamPater:
quote:I guess it can't hurt asking Mary to put in a good word then?
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I'm screwed.
quote:Let me cite from
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
Care to elaborate about the relation of time to eternity appreciated since Boethius? (Separate thread?)
quote:and perhaps to extend the discussion of "foreknowledge", here's St Thomas Aquinas:
The Catholic Encyclopedia on "Eternity":
The notion is of special interest in helping us to realize, however, faintly, the relations of God to created things, especially with regard to His foreknowledge. In Him there is no before or after, and therefore no foreknowledge, objectively; the distinction which we are wont to draw between His knowledge of intelligence or science or prescience and His knowledge of vision is merely our way of representing things, natural enough to us, but not by any means objective or real in Him. There is no real objective difference between His intelligence and His vision, not between either of these and the Divine substance in which there is no possibility of difference or change. That infinitely perfect substantial intelligence, immense as it is eternal, and withal existing entire and immutable as an indivisible point in space and as an indivisible instant in time, is coextensive, in the sense of being intimately present, with the space-extension and the time-succession of all creatures; not beside them, nor parallel with them, nor before or after them; but present in and with them, sustaining them, co-operating with them, and therefore seeing -- not foreseeing -- what they may do at any particular point of the space-extension, or at any instant of the time-extension, in which they may exist or operate.
quote:Basically, if you watch a movie of me doing things, then the fact that you perfectly know from the movie what I'm doing does not change the fact that as I was doing them I was free (not determined) in my acts. Your knowledge now did not force my hand then. We can only imagine this after something has happened - that's because we are time-based creatures. We can only reason - as above - that an eternal being can always do this (so "before" and "while" it happens in our time perspective), but we can't square this reasoning with our own experiential instincts. That doesn't make the reasoning less true though.
From Summa Theologiae I q14 a13 (re-arranged for easier reading):
Now God knows all contingent things not only as they are in their causes, but also as each one of them is actually in itself. And although contingent things become actual successively, nevertheless God knows contingent things not successively, as they are in their own being, as we do but simultaneously. The reason is because His knowledge is measured by eternity, as is also His being; and eternity being simultaneously whole comprises all time, as said above (Question [10], Article [2]). Hence all things that are in time are present to God from eternity, not only because He has the types of things present within Him, as some say; but because His glance is carried from eternity over all things as they are in their presentiality. Hence it is manifest that contingent things are infallibly known by God, inasmuch as they are subject to the divine sight in their presentiality; yet they are future contingent things in relation to their own causes.
Objection 3: Further, everything known by God must necessarily be, because even what we ourselves know, must necessarily be; and, of course, the knowledge of God is much more certain than ours. But no future contingent things must necessarily be. Therefore no contingent future thing is known by God.
Reply to Objection 3: Things reduced to act in time, as known by us successively in time, but by God (are known) in eternity, which is above time. Whence to us they cannot be certain, forasmuch as we know future contingent things as such; but (they are certain) to God alone, whose understanding is in eternity above time. Just as he who goes along the road, does not see those who come after him; whereas he who sees the whole road from a height, sees at once all travelling by the way. Hence what is known by us must be necessary, even as it is in itself; for what is future contingent in itself, cannot be known by us. Whereas what is known by God must be necessary according to the mode in which they are subject to the divine knowledge, as already stated, but not absolutely as considered in their own causes. Hence also this proposition, "Everything known by God must necessarily be," is usually distinguished; for this may refer to the thing, or to the saying. If it refers to the thing, it is divided and false; for the sense is, "Everything which God knows is necessary." If understood of the saying, it is composite and true; for the sense is, "This proposition, 'that which is known by God is' is necessary."
quote:With a loony goat? Now, how would that help?
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I only hope when Jesus comes in Judgement he comes like this.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:Fair enough -- but that makes a nonsense of justification by faith, doesn't it? If faith is an expression of God's grace, then how is God's grace expressed in those people with no opportunity for faith? By moral character? Doesn't that take us back to Pelagius?
Originally posted by Riccardus:
I think the general medium-sized-c catholic* position is that we are supposed to respond to God insofar as we are able to. E.g. at the most basic level everyone is aware of some concept of Good, and since we believe that God=Good, our response to our awareness of good is a kind of response to God.
quote:
Well for once, I am going to be the one arguing for complexity.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:<sigh> I'm with you there, Lyda Rose!
I'm screwed.
quote:Well, if you are of the opinion that God has the ability to choose who to condemn and who to save, then I suggest you go to the Will God allow anyone to go to hell thread, where most of the non-universalists seem to think that the only people who go to hell are people who really want too...
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
A pertinent question, methinks, is:
Is God looking for reasons to condemn, or reasons to save?
I think considering this question sheds a certain amount of light.
quote:Well, firstly I should warn you that anything I say on the subject will be tentative (and quite likely based on a misunderstanding). But I'm not suggesting anyone can actively choose to be good, which would indeed be Pelagian, or even of themselves choose to want to be good (which would be semi-Pelagian).
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
quote:Fair enough -- but that makes a nonsense of justification by faith, doesn't it? If faith is an expression of God's grace, then how is God's grace expressed in those people with no opportunity for faith? By moral character? Doesn't that take us back to Pelagius?
Originally posted by Riccardus:
I think the general medium-sized-c catholic* position is that we are supposed to respond to God insofar as we are able to. E.g. at the most basic level everyone is aware of some concept of Good, and since we believe that God=Good, our response to our awareness of good is a kind of response to God.
quote:This is almost fine with me. So if a complete turnaround is needed, what practical difference does it make whether forgiveness precedes or follows? Does it feel different to the average Joe?
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:Oh, OK, ta. But did I say at any point that the offer of unconditional forgiveness occurs without these things? The offer of unconditional forgiveness precedes repentance and changed life, to be sure. But it also anticipates and produces repentance and changed life. If God forgives you unconditionally, you live a different life. IIf he doesn't, you don't.
Originally posted by Freddy:
The one that says that Jesus offers unconditional forgiveness without repentance and regardless of how we live.
I don't think Jesus (or Paul for that matter) expected any less than a complete turnaround in the lives of those who accepted God's free offer of forgiveness.
quote:Well no, I agree with you, that commentary on Aquinas, and of course Aquinas himself. It's a perfectly orthodox (Orthodox, who knows...) belief which however only makes sense if one adopts the pre-Ockham "classical" idea of freedom. For somebody is bound to ask you soon where there's any choice in all this... Good luck argueing about that.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
This is mostly based on a commentary of Aquinas that I read - I suspect IngoB will soon tell me where I'm wrong, and I suspect the Orthodox may see it a bit differently.
quote:Oh no, much better to leave that to the experts
Originally posted by IngoB:
It's a perfectly orthodox (Orthodox, who knows...) belief which however only makes sense if one adopts the pre-Ockham "classical" idea of freedom. For somebody is bound to ask you soon where there's any choice in all this... Good luck argueing about that.
...quote:How does this square with Edmund Burke's saying: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Originally posted by Ricardus:
This, AIUI, leaves the options of actively choosing to want to be evil - ie resisting God - or not choosing at all but being "quiescent" in will. In the first case God cannot force us without violating our ability to choose; but in the latter case He can, by His grace, infuse in us a desire to be good, which is a form of faith.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:Gordon, I'm a little confused, wondering if you could explain what you mean.
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Actually in that last reading from Revelation, there is a clue to just this because of the mention of the "book of life", where (if your name is written) you will certainly be spared from the lake of fire. And how do you get into that book of life? (the $64 question) According to John earlier in Revelation 13:8, this happens before the foundation of the world.
If our names are written in the book of life before the foundation of the world, it follows that our entrance into the Heavenly city can't possibly be because of any decision we've made, or anything we've done, whether good or evil.
What a delightful assurance for a sinner like me!
quote:So I guess that it involves a certain amount of guesswork as to which it is in any particular situation.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think the answer is that "quiescence" refers to our will's response to moral imperatives, not to our actions. So if there is a moral imperative for us to do something, then by doing nothing we are actively resisting that moral imperative. If we are quiescent with regard to that moral imperative, then we do something.
quote:This is a more concise method of asking what I was trying to ask before. I think that this is where Calvinism in practice if not in theory historically devolved back into the old testament purity ethic.
Originally posted by Manda:
How do you know if you're predestined??
quote:I think that would be looking at the question back-to-front. If we do good works it is by the grace of God, and so we are being quiescent to His will. So we can tell if we are being quiescent if we know are in fact doing good works.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:So I guess that it involves a certain amount of guesswork as to which it is in any particular situation.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think the answer is that "quiescence" refers to our will's response to moral imperatives, not to our actions. So if there is a moral imperative for us to do something, then by doing nothing we are actively resisting that moral imperative. If we are quiescent with regard to that moral imperative, then we do something.
quote:Umm. And you're not seeing the flaw in that logic?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:I think that would be looking at the question back-to-front. If we do good works it is by the grace of God, and so we are being quiescent to His will. So we can tell if we are being quiescent if we know we are in fact doing good works.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:So I guess that it involves a certain amount of guesswork as to which it is in any particular situation.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think the answer is that "quiescence" refers to our will's response to moral imperatives, not to our actions. So if there is a moral imperative for us to do something, then by doing nothing we are actively resisting that moral imperative. If we are quiescent with regard to that moral imperative, then we do something.
quote:Well, for example, here I am at work with the usual line-up of people waiting to see me. I can grant their requests or not, as I choose. Do I just go with my heart and assume it is grace? Do I try hard to decide fairly in each case? Do I fumble mechanically through the process and assume it doesn't really matter what I do?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But I'm not sure I've understood your question properly. What would "taking matters into your own hands" mean?
quote:I think the overarching moral imperative is to discern to the best of your ability the right thing to do, if you don't already know it, and then do it.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Do I just go with my heart and assume it is grace? Do I try hard to decide fairly in each case? Do I fumble mechanically through the process and assume it doesn't really matter what I do?
quote:That's probably not far from the position I'm trying to argue. The caveat is that if you choose good, the only bit that is really controlled by you is the decision not to resist God's will. The decision to positively embrace God's will is itself a manifestation of God's will.
What I'm saying is that I would prefer to think that I am making real choices, from God's grace, and attribute the power for good to God and the power to do evil to myself or to hell.
quote:That's fine with me. So where does effort come in? I assume that the effort is really God's, but it appears to be mine. I am obliged, I assume, to put in as much effort as I reasonably can.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:That's probably not far from the position I'm trying to argue. The caveat is that if you choose good, the only bit that is really controlled by you is the decision not to resist God's will. The decision to positively embrace God's will is itself a manifestation of God's will.
Originally posted by Freddy:
What I'm saying is that I would prefer to think that I am making real choices, from God's grace, and attribute the power for good to God and the power to do evil to myself or to hell.
The "real choice" that is controlled by you is between resistence / not-resistence.
quote:I'm going to give my opinion here, and stress strongly that it is my opinion only. It's been formulating over the last several years thinking over the matter, reading, talking, meditating, etc. I think there are firm roots for the position in Scripture and in various "heretics" of history, too, but I'll get to the point.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I have been thoroughly confused for years by the faith-and-grace versus works dichotomy. On the one hand I believe that anything that brings us to salvation/reconciliation starts with God. But where do works come in? Are they an automatic out-pouring of the gifts of the Spirit? Are they a loving response to the Love that found us first? Are they part of contrition for our previously sorry selves?
Jesus says that he is the fulfillment of the Law. Paul says he no longer lives under the Law. Yet the NT is full of precepts, admonishments, and rebukes for things done and left undone, seemingly numerous rules and regulations, most reiterating aspects of the Law. It reads like the Law all shined up with a new coat of paint.
<snip>
What if good deeds don't seem to be arising like a fountain from our salvation, if we "try" to make good deeds happen are we just faking it, are they not real good deeds? Does that mean we are the goats who cry "Lord! Lord!" yet aren't up to snuff? Or if we don't live under the Law are we doomed by "For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven"? And if Grace cancels out that hard fate, why did Jesus state he requires such conduct?
quote:I suppose so, with the caveats that our actual contribution is fairly passive, and it's never too late to repent.
Originally posted by Freddy:
I assume that the effort is really God's, but it appears to be mine. I am obliged, I assume, to put in as much effort as I reasonably can.
quote:You sound pretty on-top-of-it to me!
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:I suppose so, with the caveats that our actual contribution is fairly passive, and it's never too late to repent.
Originally posted by Freddy:
I assume that the effort is really God's, but it appears to be mine. I am obliged, I assume, to put in as much effort as I reasonably can.
Of course this is all a bit abstract. It may well be that what psychologically feels like effort is quiescence. It may well be that I don't know what I'm talking about...
quote:Digory, thanks for the explanation.
Originally posted by professorkirke:
God gives us things he still wants us to do, not because our salvation depends on it, but because this life matters.
We're not just trying to get to heaven. We're trying to live in such a way that brings out a manifestation of the great Grace which God has provided to us all.
quote:I am most certainly not sure. I would only argue that no amount of shortcomings in this life would keep us from the chance to experience that happiness in "heaven" though, thanks be to God.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Are you sure that the things required for living a good and happy life in this world, and the things required for living in happiness forever in heaven, are two different sets? Are they unrelated?
quote:N T Wright understands that our calling isn't to be forever in heaven with God, but that Jesus will return to reclaim the earth as the place for us to live. Heaven is temporary until the return of Christ, in his view. Were he to be (w)right, I imagine that things that lead to a good and happy life in this world could be just those very same things that would lead to happiness in the eternal world.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Are you sure that the things required for living a good and happy life in this world, and the things required for living in happiness forever in heaven, are two different sets? Are they unrelated?
quote:One of the primary concepts here is that of imputation.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think the "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification" by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church is an excellent place to start. Then follow it up with the Catechism on "Grace and Justification." That entire (not so long) chapter is worth your time, it contains unequivcoal statements like "The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace."
quote:It would be a nice idea, if it weren't for the fact that globally so few people are so imputed.
Either way, I think imputation is a key idea in thinking about grace, legalism and Christian conduct.
What do others think of the concept of imputation?
quote:You don't think they are imputed?
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
It would be a nice idea, if it weren't for the fact that globally so few people are so imputed.
quote:Yes, I think that is what CC means too. It doesn't seem fair to me either.
Originally posted by professorkirke:
I think CC is referencing the traditional evangelical understanding that not many make it to heaven*; thus, only very few get this righteousness imputed to them from God which begs other questions that we all can see coming from 30 miles off.
quote:Well, that's sort of what I meant. But it's not really a case of heaven and hell, more a case of how the imputation is manifested in life. If we are imputed with God's righteousness, then I would expect to see some widespread visible manifestation of that. I'm not sure what I'd be looking for, to be honest; but I feel that I would know it if I saw it
Originally posted by professorkirke:
I think CC is referencing the traditional evangelical understanding that not many make it to heaven*; thus, only very few get this righteousness imputed to them from God which begs other questions that we all can see coming from 30 miles off.
quote:I don't think God is in the business of imputing to us righteousness that is not properly ours. I think he is in the business of making us righteous. He doesn't hide our bruises with makeup, he doesn't cover up the stench of our infected wounds with perfume, and he doesn't pretend we can dance on our crippled legs.
Originally posted by Freddy:
The idea that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace means that God imputes to us righteousness that is not properly ours. <snip> What do others think of the concept of imputation?
quote:I'm quite annoyed that you say this right after citing my two links, which do not speak of imputation at all (the word "impute" occurs once in the Vatican text, but used quite differently "When persons come by faith to share in Christ, God no longer imputes to them their sin..."). "Imputation" is a Lutheran concept which is alien to RC theology (and alien to the Christian tradition shared with the Orthodox). See for example the summary here. The JDDJ compromise is significant in many ways, one of them is in not mentioning imputation...
Originally posted by Freddy:
One of the primary concepts here is that of imputation.
quote:Sorry about that. I did not know that this was a point of contention. I thought that imputation was as implicit in Catholic doctrine as it was explicit in Lutheran.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm quite annoyed that you say this right after citing my two links, which do not speak of imputation at all (the word "impute" occurs once in the Vatican text, but used quite differently "When persons come by faith to share in Christ, God no longer imputes to them their sin..."). "Imputation" is a Lutheran concept which is alien to RC theology (and alien to the Christian tradition shared with the Orthodox). See for example the summary here. The JDDJ compromise is significant in many ways, one of them is in not mentioning imputation...
quote:How is "associating man with the work of grace" not imputation? Or do you agree with me that God imputes righteousness to those who freely obey Him, just as if they had power from themselves to do this?
"The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace."
quote:Well, anyone who asserts that you are saved by faith in Christ, for starters. And relative to the people who are living or who have lived on earth, even asserting that you are only saved through one of the many forms of Christianity (saved by God, obviously, but in the way described by a form of Christianity I should say) would still make the number of saved relatively small.
Originally posted by ken:
Who says the saved are a small number anyway?
quote:Of course, Jesus was asked about this:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
quote:Well, anyone who asserts that you are saved by faith in Christ, for starters.
Originally posted by ken:
Who says the saved are a small number anyway?
quote:Notice that Jesus does not directly affirm the question by saying that few will be saved. He seems to also say that people all over the world will be saved - perhaps even in preference to those who "ate and drank" in His presence.
Luke 13.23 Then one said to Him, “Lord, are there few who are saved?” And He said to them, 24 “Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able. 25 When once the Master of the house has risen up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, Lord, open for us,’ and He will answer and say to you, ‘I do not know you, where you are from,’ 26 then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.’ 27 But He will say, ‘I tell you I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.’ 28 There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out. 29 They will come from the east and the west, from the north and the south, and sit down in the kingdom of God. 30 And indeed there are last who will be first, and there are first who will be last.”
quote:I don't know what you mean by that. Perhaps you are confusing redemption with imputation?
Originally posted by Freddy:
I'm not sure that I buy this, however. It seems to me that Jesus' role in the Catholic Trinity is unclear without some form of imputation.
quote:Again, I have no clear idea what you are claiming, other than that it seems to border on Semipelagianism. God's grace is at work in the world, and He allows man to participate in that, to become an instrument of God's grace. I don't see how this means anything is imputed to man, other than analogically speaking. A master violinist may say that his Stradivari is the reason why his concert was so magnificent. But really all that means is that this particular instrument will let his abilities shine as they should, whereas a lesser violin wouldn't to the same extent. Give that Stradivari to a beginner and it sounds horrible, let it not be played and it becomes merely a piece of wood.
Originally posted by Freddy:
How is "associating man with the work of grace" not imputation? Or do you agree with me that God imputes righteousness to those who freely obey Him, just as if they had power from themselves to do this?
quote:Maybe that was what was in the back of my mind; but we've already had 30-odd pages of that in the `Will anyone go to Hell' thread, with no clear consensus, so I didn't want to drag the discussion down there again
Originally posted by professorkirke:
quote:Well, anyone who asserts that you are saved by faith in Christ, for starters. And relative to the people who are living or who have lived on earth, even asserting that you are only saved through one of the many forms of Christianity (saved by God, obviously, but in the way described by a form of Christianity I should say) would still make the number of saved relatively small.
Originally posted by ken:
Who says the saved are a small number anyway?
I'm not arguing that either of these concepts are wrong, but just that this tends to be a traditional evangelical view, which I thought CC had been responding to earlier.
quote:Maybe. What I mean is that both Catholic and Protestant teaching identify Christ as having borne the sins of humanity on the cross and redeemed us by making satisfaction to the Father. This formula seems to me to mean that the mechanism of any individual's salvation is some way of being included in that act of redemption. The Protestant means is "saving faith" and the Catholic means is transformation through the processes of the church. Correct me if I am wrong about this.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:I don't know what you mean by that. Perhaps you are confusing redemption with imputation?
Originally posted by Freddy:
I'm not sure that I buy this, however. It seems to me that Jesus' role in the Catholic Trinity is unclear without some form of imputation.
quote:I'm saying that people are judged on the basis of whether or not they have freely chosen to love God and the neighbor, as Jesus taught. This is what avails them of God's grace, and is made possible by grace.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Again, I have no clear idea what you are claiming, other than that it seems to border on Semipelagianism. God's grace is at work in the world, and He allows man to participate in that, to become an instrument of God's grace. I don't see how this means anything is imputed to man, other than analogically speaking.
Originally posted by Freddy:
How is "associating man with the work of grace" not imputation? Or do you agree with me that God imputes righteousness to those who freely obey Him, just as if they had power from themselves to do this?
