justification by grace/faith

[Sheepdog]

of all the more important doctrines in tradition, this one seems to the most difficult to find common ground on. i'm going to be writing an article on soteriology for my site here pretty soon, but as with other articles in the series, the focus will be on what has been understood as being right doctrine, as opposed to heresy.

unfortunately, the whole Roman Catholic/Protestant conflict on this doctrine is not going to make this an easy task. after all, i could have sworn Protestantism had been historically labelled a heresy, and even now there are Prots who argue that Catholics preach "another gospel" a la Gal. 1:6-10 (James White comes to mind as a popular example).

now, i must admit i will be coming to this topic from the Protestant tradition of Justification by faith. while i will not compromise my own view just to be cordial, my view is more complicated than what i think the Reformers originally expressed. i'm thinking there might be enough common ground that i can work on this project without condemning a third of the Christians in the world as heretics.

so, i opened this thread in hopes of better understanding the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox (since i don't know much at all about the latter) views on soteriology. i really don't want to start a debate here like others on TWeb, where they generate more heat than light. but if it is conductive i don't mind debate (hence this is not in Intro to Theo 101).

so i guess my questions would be, for proponents on either side, how do you define grace? faith? works? what is the relation between faith and salvation? between works and salvation? between faith and works?

my view is that indeed the Reformers get it right, that salvation is by grace through faith, not of works. that is not to say that works are not important, but i view soteriology through the vine imagery (the parable of the vine if you prefer that label) in John 15. to abide in Jesus is to hold faith in Him; those who abide in Him will bear fruit. In this imagery the fruit represents good works or works of the Law or works pleasing to God (that is, if i am correct that Jesus is using Is. 5:1-7 as the background here). Notice that Jesus doesn't say you must bear fruit: only that those who abide in Him will bear fruit. Finally, those who don't bear fruit are cut off and thrown into the fire; that is, in this sense it is true to say that works are important for salvation. it's not so much that we merit salvation by bearing fruit: works in this scheme would be the outcome of "saving" faith and grace (which appears in two forms here: the pruning[i don't know if Jesus meant to be, but i find it ironic], and being sustained by the vine ["apart from me you can do nothing"]). For this reason, i like how J.P. Holding frames it: faith and works are necessary to be saved in the sense that jumping off a cliff and falling are necessary to go splat.

since i mentioned Holding, i might as well bring up his work on the Semitic Totality Concept:

Applied to the individual, the Semitic Totality Concept means that "a man's thoughts form one totality with their results in action so that 'thoughts' that result in no action are 'vain'." [ibid, 60] To put it another way, man does not have a body; man is a body, and what we regard as constituent elements of spirit and body were looked upon by the Hebrews as a fundamental unity. Man was not made from dust, but is dust that has, "by the in-breathing of God, acquired the characteristics of self-conscious being." Thus Paul regards being an unbodied spirit as a form of nakedness (2 Cor. 5). Man is not whole without a body. A man is a totality which embraces "all that a man is and ever shall be."

Applied to the role of works following faith, this means that there can be no decision without corresponding action, for the total person will inevitably reflect a choice that is made. Thought and action are so linked under the Semitic Totality paradigm that Clark warns us [An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments, 10]:

The Hebraic view of man as an animated body and its refusal to make any clear-cut division into soul and body militates against the making of so radical a distinction between material and spiritual, ceremonial and ethical effects.

Thus, what we would consider separate actions of conversion, confession, and obedience in the form of works would be considered by the Hebrews to be an act in totality. "Both the act and the meaning of the act mattered -- the two formed for the first Christians an indivisible unity." [Flemington, New Testament Doctrine of Baptism, 111]

http://www.tektonics.org/af/baptismneed.html

if this is the case, then the "Eph. 2 versus James 2" debate seems to be misguided from the starting line. but what do other folks here think?

[ascund]

Greetings

Great idea. You rightly identify key words to define: faith and grace. However, I feel that justification is one of the two most important doctrines in theology. For Luther, justification was the chief article by which the Church or an individual stands or falls.

Your excellent synopsis of the Roman Catholic problems centers around justification. The following link is a super summary of the differences between RC and evangelical theology: http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/II/index.htm.

Present heresies exist for failure to properly understand justification by itself and in relation to sanctification. While sanctification is important, commanded, and needed for rewards; justification is primal. Sanctification must always look back to the historic accomplishments of Christ on the Cross won for sinners through faith at the moment of justification.

It will be interesting to see the responses.
Lloyd

[Sheepdog]

hiya :smile:

thank you for the good points. i'll read that article later today, and if need be give my comments on it.

are you Lutheran by any chance, or did you just note Luther since he got the Refromation going? i have some questions for Lutherans as well, but that is probably for another thread.

[BoundWill]

If you want some answers from Lutherans, I'll be around. I may not respond right away, seeing as how I actually have work to do, but I'll try to respond in due time.

[Sheepdog]

alright, i'll let you know when i do start a new thread on the topic, Bound.

[Jawa Man]

so i guess my questions would be, for proponents on either side, how do you define grace? faith? works? what is the relation between faith and salvation? between works and salvation? between faith and works?

Being a wannabe Orthodox person I will say my opinion from what I've learned so far (and correct me if I am wrong, other Orthodox).

I wrote a big thing before but I don't think it was necessary now. I simply want to ask, isn't the only main difference whether you think one needs to be baptized and chrismated or not to be saved? Baptism and chrismation are only effective because they are works of God to transform the man; man is not worthy of it, and the only thing he can do to allow it is to repent and have faith. Then God actually transforms/restores the nature of the man in baptism and makes His home in him through chrismation. Once this happens God continues to work with the guy depending on how he tries to live an honorable life for Christ. If the guy endures to the end in honoring God, He will be saved.

This sounds the same as what you said to me. The only area we may disagree is over baptism and chrismation, but even then, I think those things are works of God, and so are by His grace, not by our own works.

[Sheepdog]

This sounds the same as what you said to me. The only area we may disagree is over baptism and chrismation, but even then, I think those things are works of God, and so are by His grace, not by our own works.

i found the whole of your post educational, but part of what you say above stikes at heart of the issue for me. i recall one time getting into a discussion with Mormons on soteriology. if you are not familiar with them, they seem to hold that God's grace and the believer's efforts work together to save him. At the time I held it is only grace through faith and works don't even come into the equation. While i found that the Mormon view was indefensible, mine was very difficult to defend even from the Bible alone.

on this point, the Mormons seem to be heretical, but the reason why isn't so much that they put works in the equation. in another thread Jezz and I discussed merit a little bit... and that is where the Mormons get it wrong: they have man meritting his salvation to some extent, however little. rather, we cannot merit any portion of our salvation, but that doesn't mean we take "the sacraments" (or works in general) out of the picture. if any at all are necessary for salvation, it is because through them God works merit that Christ has earned for us into us. Or, i think you put it better: they are the works of God, His grace, not our own.

if what little i've read on chrismation is correct, then obviously i disagree there (since you don't see me running head first towards the nearest Orthodox Church :wink:). I'm not as settled on baptism, though, as i used to be. My current position is that if it is necessary in any way, it is only in the sense that if an unbaptized person professes faith but persistently refuses to "take the dip," that is good evidence that their professed faith is false. Or if i may borrow the word from James, it would be dead. I don't hold to baptismal regeneration though, if i understand it right.

unfortunately, that water is a little muddied by infant baptism. i hold to believer's baptism, but i wouldn't consider an earnest believer as lost if they earnestly hold to their baptism that was performed to them as an infant.

[Sheepdog]

btw, for reference this is Jezz's post that i was talking about on the topic of merit: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1037238&postcount=7

[Jawa Man]

This seems to be really good so far. I like discussing in in threads like this.

In my opinion, if you can work through the arguments over what scripture says on baptism and chrismation, you may find yourself agreeing with the Orthodox. Beware. Mwahahaha!

Talking to my youth leader the other day I finally understood the difference between a gift and a work. Gifts are given to us by God and can never be earned. I cannot earn salvation by good works anymore than a snail can earn a nuclear warhead by good works. It's beyond our capabilities. However, disciplines, such as patience, kindness, and all of those delicious fruits of the Holy Spirit are things we can achieve.

[Jezz]

i found the whole of your post educational, but part of what you say above stikes at heart of the issue for me. i recall one time getting into a discussion with Mormons on soteriology. if you are not familiar with them, they seem to hold that God's grace and the believer's efforts work together to save him. At the time I held it is only grace through faith and works don't even come into the equation. While i found that the Mormon view was indefensible, mine was very difficult to defend even from the Bible alone.
I'm glad that you found your position was difficult to defend. It was this realisation (among many others) that sent me to the Orthodox Church, which was much easier to defend.

on this point, the Mormons seem to be heretical, but the reason why isn't so much that they put works in the equation. in another thread Jezz and I discussed merit a little bit... and that is where the Mormons get it wrong: they have man meritting his salvation to some extent, however little. rather, we cannot merit any portion of our salvation, but that doesn't mean we take "the sacraments" (or works in general) out of the picture. if any at all are necessary for salvation, it is because through them God works merit that Christ has earned for us into us. Or, i think you put it better: they are the works of God, His grace, not our own.
Given that I saw my name being taken in vain, I thought it was about time to step into this thread. :smile:

I think that you are heading the right direction here. My understanding of the central controversy of the Reformation is that the argument took place from within an errant framework - a framework consisting of an assumption that both sides shared, and yet which was incorrect. This incorrect assumption is that "merit" is required for salvation - in order to "satisfy" the wrath of God the Father.

It is these two concepts of "merit" and "satisfaction" that were the real problem at the time of the Reformation - not works. Unfortunately, Luther and the other reformers latched onto "works" as being the root of the problem - they went left when they should have gone right... (or perhaps, they went straight ahead when they should have gone East... :wink:) If you do away with works, then you do solve the merit problem - but this (as you note) strains Biblical interpretation to breaking point. On the other hand, if you do away with merit, then works are no longer a problem - and because "merit" is not found in the Bible, you still have a very Biblical interpretation.

if what little i've read on chrismation is correct, then obviously i disagree there (since you don't see me running head first towards the nearest Orthodox Church :wink:).
To see the necessity of Chrismation, compare the following verses:

38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39This pro

(While I have cited vs 38 and 39, I am only interested in v 38 at this point. v 39 is relevant when we deal with infant baptism below).

Typical Protestant reading of this is that the Holy Spirit is received as a direct result of baptism. Now taken alone, this passage could imply this, but it does not explicitly state it. An equally valid reading of this passage is that, after their "baptism in the name of Jesus Christ", people become eligible to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit - which is given to them in a separate ritual (Confirmation/Chrismation). This is the Roman Catholic/Orthodox interpretation (although, the Roman Catholic separate the two more than the Orthodox).

Is there any way this ambiguity can be resolved? Fortunately, yes:

When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15When the y arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

Clearly, here, the reception of the Holy Spirit is seen as a separate operation to baptism. It was imparted through the laying on of hands by Ss Peter and John (this is the mystery of Chrismation/Confirmation).

Also note something else important here: St Luke tells that the people of Samaria had accepted the word of God and yet they didn't have the Holy Spirit!!! This kinda blows holes in the Protestant theory that "believing the word of God" is all that is necessary to receive the Holy Spirit...

In addition to the above, I can cite early church tradition in support of Chrismation. The mystery of Chrismation was universally settled and accepted (though practice varied, particularly between East and West) before the Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed was, and even before the canon of Scripture was.

But anyway, I digress... this is not a thread about Chrismation...

I'm not as settled on baptism, though, as i used to be. My current position is that if it is necessary in any way, it is only in the sense that if an unbaptized person professes faith but persistently refuses to "take the dip," that is good evidence that their professed faith is false. Or if i may borrow the word from James, it would be dead. I don't hold to baptismal regeneration though, if i understand it right.
I suspect that perhaps you don't understand baptismal regeneration right. Baptism is certainly regenerative (that is what is meant by "for the forgiveness of sins" in Acts 2:38 above), but that is not all it is.

The best way to think of baptism is to think in terms of covenant and citizenship. The Church is a nation, a kingdom - the kingdom of heaven (= the kingdom of God). Granted, the kingdom of heaven is not of this world - but it is in this world. Like most other kingdoms/nations, there is a ritual for citizenship. Just as circumcision was the means by which one became a citizen of Israel in the Old Covenant, baptism is the new circumcision for the New Covenant.

Like all citizenship, it is not earned. Noone has the right to become a citizen of a country by the merit of what they have done. Noone can make themselves a citizen. The country (via its governing officials) has the right to bestow citizenship on whoever they choose (or likewise, to withhold it). I do not become a Jew by reading the Torah and pledging to abide by it - the Jewish community must bestow Jewish covenant membership on me. Likewise, I do not become a member of Christ's covenant by reading the Bible and pledging my allegience to Christ - I become a member by approaching the covenant community and having them make me a member.

unfortunately, that water is a little muddied by infant baptism. i hold to believer's baptism, but i wouldn't consider an earnest believer as lost if they earnestly hold to their baptism that was performed to them as an infant.
The purpose of infant baptism should be clarified by the explanation above - particularly with reference to the citizenship understanding. We baptise infants so that they can be made citizens of the kingdom of heaven too. Certainly, understanding baptism as being only a regenerative thing does leave the question open as to why infants (who have not sinned) would need to be baptised... (note that this is how St Augustine derived the doctrine of inherited guilt... he reasoned that because infants needed to be baptised, they must be sinful...)

But you certainly are correct in saying that a person who is baptised as an infant is under an obligation to hold earnestly to their baptism - to live their baptism day-by-day.

Note that if you want to become a citizen of (say) the US as an adult, you have to undergo a period of instruction, make a pledge to uphold the US constitution etc, and only then are you made a citizen. This is what you might call "believer citizenship". But note also that US citizenship can be (and is) conferred on infants who are born to US citizens, so that they may share in the benefits that US citizenship has to offer. The parents of such an infant are expected to bring them up as good US citizens.

In support of infant baptism, refer again to St Peter's speech early in Acts (v39). The promise is for you and your children.

Before I go: a quick note on justification (to get back to the original thread topic). As I noted above, the Roman Catholic/Protestant discussion on this bypasses the Orthodox to a large extent, because it takes place within a framework that we do not accept. Justification is hardly ever mentioned by the Fathers of the Church (so it is hard to say much about it), and when it is there is certainly no implication that it would be a one-time event. One explanation that I have seen In Orthodoxy, justification and sanctification are seen as opposite sides of the same coin - justification talks about us going away from sin, whereas sanctification talks about us coming closer to God. Obviously, these are not independent - rather, they are intimately related. It is like "justification" measures how far we are from zero, whereas "sanctification" measures how close we are to infinity.

[spl_cadet]

Whee, haven't posted here in quite awhile. Been working on a book, though my tendency to procrastination has plagued it (a layman's refutation of all heresies).


so i guess my questions would be, for proponents on either side, how do you define grace?

There's two types of grace, sanctifying and actual. Sanctifying grace is that which is infused into our soul to heal us of sin and sanctify us. Actual grace is "a supernatural help of God for salutary acts granted in consideration of the merits of Christ" according to the Catholic Encyclopedia


faith?

The intellectual assent to the truth that God has revealed. It is a response to grace, for without the promptings of the Holy Spirit it is impossible to believe. To quote St. Aquinas "Therefore faith, as regards the assent which is the chief act of faith, is from God moving man inwardly by grace."


works?

Good things that we do. But we must remember that God is their First Cause (for that matter, every non-evil act has God as the first cause).


what is the relation between faith and salvation?

Necessary.


between works and salvation?

Living faith, dead faith. Salvation, considered strictly by itself, is unmerited. But we can merit eternal rewards above and beyond salvation (we do not all shine equally after the glorification of our resurrected bodies).


between faith and works?

Have to have the one (and be regenerate) in order to do the other with the possibility of receiving merit.


i'm thinking there might be enough common ground that i can work on this project without condemning a third of the Christians in the world as heretics.

But the Protestants are. :tongue: Half of Christianity is Catholic. Bit more than a third :tongue:

It alright if I steal your argument for later use Jezz? :teeth:

[Sheepdog]

I'm glad that you found your position was difficult to defend. It was this realisation (among many others) that sent me to the Orthodox Church, which was much easier to defend.

kewl. yeah don't think i blame you.

Given that I saw my name being taken in vain, I thought it was about time to step into this thread. :smile:

:hehe: (I hope you didn't feel compelled or anything. i just referenced you because i found your post on merits insightful.)

I think that you are heading the right direction here. My understanding of the central controversy of the Reformation is that the argument took place from within an errant framework - a framework consisting of an assumption that both sides shared, and yet which was incorrect. This incorrect assumption is that "merit" is required for salvation - in order to "satisfy" the wrath of God the Father.

It is these two concepts of "merit" and "satisfaction" that were the real problem at the time of the Reformation - not works. Unfortunately, Luther and the other reformers latched onto "works" as being the root of the problem - they went left when they should have gone right... (or perhaps, they went straight ahead when they should have gone East... :wink:) If you do away with works, then you do solve the merit problem - but this (as you note) strains Biblical interpretation to breaking point. On the other hand, if you do away with merit, then works are no longer a problem - and because "merit" is not found in the Bible, you still have a very Biblical interpretation.

this seems to make sense. though, there is a sense that the concept of "merit" comes up... Romans 4:3-5, where something based on works is creditted as an obligation, as in contrast to faith as being "credited as righteousness" by grace. but i suspect Paul is addressing a potential misconception about "the works of the law" relative to the Christian (cf. Rom. 3:27ff.) I don't know, you may want to address this yourself, but my thoughts are that since the Orthodox are not saying we baptize and chrismize (is that the proper term?) for the sake of merit, this doesn't apply in the first place. Besides, the context of Paul's statements is that he is contrasting the "works of the law" (cf. Rom 3:27-31 ... the chapter division doesn't do this section justice.) from faith.

on a related but not specifically relevant point, i don't take the above passage to support the Reformed view of "Imputed Righteousness," inasmuch as i understand it. Robert E. Picirilli comments on Arminius' view (Grace, Faith, Free Will. pp. 163-165. Randal House, Nashville TN; 2002.), that it wasn't that faith is substituted for righteousness "except in a loose sense" (ibid. 164). Rather he takes this to mean that righteousness is reckoned to us based on faith. I don't know if i necessarily agree: admittedly i haven't developed a theologic view on this issue, yet. but that seems to be more conductive to a traditionalist view on the sacraments, where perhaps baptism and such are part of the righteousness reckoned to use.

i recall you had a thread on the topic. i'll have to dig it up as i found your view on the topic noteworthy.

Unfortunately, i have church in a bit, so i'm going to come back later to address the baptism/christmation issues. i will tell you up front that i have some comments to make, but i don't plan to get into a detailed or sustained debate on those topics. I hope you don't mind. also, spl_cadet, i'll get to your post afterwards as well. thank you for the reply.

Before I go: a quick note on justification (to get back to the original thread topic). As I noted above, the Roman Catholic/Protestant discussion on this bypasses the Orthodox to a large extent, because it takes place within a framework that we do not accept. Justification is hardly ever mentioned by the Fathers of the Church (so it is hard to say much about it), and when it is there is certainly no implication that it would be a one-time event. One explanation that I have seen In Orthodoxy, justification and sanctification are seen as opposite sides of the same coin - justification talks about us going away from sin, whereas sanctification talks about us coming closer to God. Obviously, these are not independent - rather, they are intimately related. It is like "justification" measures how far we are from zero, whereas "sanctification" measures how close we are to infinity.

it is very interesting that you bring this up, as my had rethought my view on justification not too long ago. have you ever payed particularly close attention to some of the "I am" statements in John? (I suspect that should be a rhetorical question. :wink:) i am the bread of life, i am the vine and you are the branches, etc. Jesus often uses imagery of sustenance. He will give us the living water; he is the bread of life; i am the vine, you are the branches; this wine in the blood of the covenant, poored out for you, drink; this is my body, this bread, eat. now, i used to understand that in terms of the medival myth of the "fountain of youth," where you drink from it once and live forever. however, i don't think that is Jesus had that in mind. rather, he used imagery of continuance: you need to return to the well to drink more water. you need to eat regularly to live. a branch cannot live long if it is broken off from the vine. No, i think the idea here is one of perpetual sustenance. and granted, Jesus said we would no longer thirst nor hunger (spiritually, by implication, not physically), but that doesn't mean that salvation is a one shot deal: we will never hunger nor thirst again because he will continue to sustain us into eternity.

also, a friend of mine brought up elsewhere that some of the places where it says you must believe, the Greek term doesn't imply a one time deal, but that you must continually believe. i don't know what specific examples they had in mind though. but, if so, it and the sustenance view seem to fall well inline with the Orthodox view on justification that you articulated.

[Nang]

so, i opened this thread in hopes of better understanding the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox (since i don't know much at all about the latter) views on soteriology.

Why?

I don't want to know more about their views.

Why would you?

Their views are wrong.

Aren't you blessed and satisfied with what Holy Scripture has taught you about the Justification of God?

Why dig around in the foul waste of false teachers? . . .

Oh. Maybe you really do not know their views . . .well I can sum it up real quick for you to save you grief.

They (and all other false religions) believe in a justification (through faith) of original sin, but in order to assuredly see eternal life, one must do good works until the end of their lives.


Nang

[Nang]

Meant to add . . .

The RCC and EO hold to the old heresy of Pelagianism, in a watered-down (semi) version.

Nang

[spl_cadet]

Why?

I don't want to know more about their views.

Why would you?

Their views are wrong.

Aren't you blessed and satisfied with what Holy Scripture has taught you about the Justification of God?

Why dig around in the foul waste of false teachers? . . .

How exactly are you supposed to know that it is false, or know how to refute it, if you don't know precisely what you are dealing with?


The RCC and EO hold to the old heresy of Pelagianism, in a watered-down (semi) version.

Really? Would you mind proving that? Since I don't want to hijack Sheepdog's thread, please start a new thread on it. Please also keep this article (www.catholic-cadet.com/apol/works.html) in mind. I'd like to see a comparison of the Catholic view with a step by step examination of the doctrines of Semi-Pelagianism and how they are the same, or at least similar. Please quote directly from official Catholic documents or Catechisms when describing Catholic views.

[Sheepdog]

Why?

I don't want to know more about their views.

Why would you?

Their views are wrong.

that may or may not be. but the fact of the matter is, i'd rather not be quick to condemn well over half a billion (over 1 billion?) professed Christians as heretics. perhaps both are heresy, or perhaps not: that is the point of this thread.

BTW, so far i'm leaning towards not. but, perhaps you should take spl_cadet on his suggestion and start a new thread if you want to argue it further.

[spl_cadet]

1.1 billion Catholics and 300 million Orthodox last I checked.

[Jezz]

Whee, haven't posted here in quite awhile.
Welcome back!

It alright if I steal your argument for later use Jezz? :teeth:
Sure. As you quite correctly noted, "every non-evil act has God as the first cause" - so if it was a good argument, it's not "my" argument anyway...

Which argument in particular are you talking about?

[Jezz]

Why?

I don't want to know more about their views.

Why would you?

Their views are wrong.
I have to echo spl_cadet's question here. If you don't know their views completely, then how can you be so sure that they are wrong?

[spl_cadet]

Which argument in particular are you talking about?

Baptism and citizenship. Rather good analogy I thought, though unfortunately I'll probably forget it before I have a chance to use it again :tongue:

[Sheepdog]

To see the necessity of Chrismation, compare the following verses:

38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39This pro

(While I have cited vs 38 and 39, I am only interested in v 38 at this point. v 39 is relevant when we deal with infant baptism below).

Typical Protestant reading of this is that the Holy Spirit is received as a direct result of baptism. Now taken alone, this passage could imply this, but it does not explicitly state it. An equally valid reading of this passage is that, after their "baptism in the name of Jesus Christ", people become eligible to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit - which is given to them in a separate ritual (Confirmation/Chrismation). This is the Roman Catholic/Orthodox interpretation (although, the Roman Catholic separate the two more than the Orthodox).

Is there any way this ambiguity can be resolved? Fortunately, yes:

When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15When the y arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

Clearly, here, the reception of the Holy Spirit is seen as a separate operation to baptism. It was imparted through the laying on of hands by Ss Peter and John (this is the mystery of Chrismation/Confirmation).

Also note something else important here: St Luke tells that the people of Samaria had accepted the word of God and yet they didn't have the Holy Spirit!!! This kinda blows holes in the Protestant theory that "believing the word of God" is all that is necessary to receive the Holy Spirit...

well i suppose it would depend. it does show that the Holy Spirit doesn't necessarily come the second one starts to believe. i guess the key would be whether Luke here is reporting history that is peculiar to the infant church or if what we see here should be normative. i guess i'd have to study more before i come to a conclusion on this one.

interestingly, Acts 10 seems to provide a counterexample:(44) While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all those who heard the message (45) The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were greatly astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, (46) for they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, (47) "No one can withhold the water for these people to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" (48) So he gave orders to have them baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay for several days. Acts 10:44-48. i would be interested in what your thoughts are on this section.


I suspect that perhaps you don't understand baptismal regeneration right. Baptism is certainly regenerative (that is what is meant by "for the forgiveness of sins" in Acts 2:38 above), but that is not all it is.

i read a good article on Acts 2:38 one time, suggesting that the Greek doesn't support the regenerist interpretation. i'll have to see if i can dig it up again (i could have sworn it had to do with eis, the word for "for", but i don't remember the details so i shouldn't comment more on it than that).

The best way to think of baptism is to think in terms of covenant and citizenship. The Church is a nation, a kingdom - the kingdom of heaven (= the kingdom of God). Granted, the kingdom of heaven is not of this world - but it is in this world. Like most other kingdoms/nations, there is a ritual for citizenship. Just as circumcision was the means by which one became a citizen of Israel in the Old Covenant, baptism is the new circumcision for the New Covenant.

Like all citizenship, it is not earned. Noone has the right to become a citizen of a country by the merit of what they have done. Noone can make themselves a citizen. The country (via its governing officials) has the right to bestow citizenship on whoever they choose (or likewise, to withhold it). I do not become a Jew by reading the Torah and pledging to abide by it - the Jewish community must bestow Jewish covenant membership on me. Likewise, I do not become a member of Christ's covenant by reading the Bible and pledging my allegience to Christ - I become a member by approaching the covenant community and having them make me a member.

yeah. i actually spoke to a Lutheran friend one time on infant baptism. we agreed, at least, that it isn't just symbolic as some Evangelicals say.

my thinking has been like the above, though i view it more in terms of community than in national terms. (although in a sense, the Kingdom of God is just one big community.) often, ingroups had some sort of initiation ceremony for new members. one modern equivalent to this would be college fraternities, some of which have some bizaare rituals. in the first century they would have been more common especially for special groups, like the Essenes, Pharisees, etc. Even if we look at Judaism proper, circumcism was an initiation rite, which was even expected of Gentil converts.

so, i have for the most part seen baptism as the rite of entry into the church -- and when i say church, i don't mean any building or structure, but the body of Christ.

now, i've seen other people draw a parallel between circumcism and baptism, and from that more explicitely conclude that since circumcism was performed on infants, we should likewise baptize infants. but the irony here is that while i agree that there is a parallel to be drawn here, it would work against infant baptism. you see, Judaism was a heavily family-oriented religion. we see this a lot in the Old Testament, especially the veneration of Abraham as the Father of all the Jewish people. also and more importantly, anyone born of a Jew was born into Judaism. They had converts of course, but in general entry into the Jewish religion was by physical birth. So in that way, it makes sense for the intiation rite of circumcism to be performed while the male was an infant. (though i doubt they had it in mind, but from what i hear it would have been less painful to have done to an infant than an adult.)

but what is the means of entry into the church? or perhaps i should reframe the question: what must happen before one can "see" or enter the Kingdom of God? Jesus answered that question: "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." John 3:3, NIV. So whereas one was often physically born into Judaism, one must be spiritually born into Christianity. Now of course, a discussion of the chicken and egg issue here (does God regenerate those who believe, or does He regenerate sinners, causing them to believe) is out of the scope of this topic, but at the very least it's safe to say faith and being "born of the Spirit" go hand in hand. thus, i'd argue that if indeed we should use circumcism as a precedent of a sort for baptism, then the prerequisite for baptism should be spiritual birth, not physical birth, into the New Covenant family.

I think we also see a similar theme in Romans. While Paul is careful not to disparage the natural descendance of the Jews, one of the notions Paul keeps coming back to is the primacy of faith, such that even the Gentile is an heir even despite not being circumcized. I believe this culminates into Romans 9 -- I don't know what the Orthodox interpretation of this chapter is, but my understanding now is that Paul starts by explaining why the word of God had not failed, even though so many Jews rejected their messiah. Paul answers by noting that it is not the physical descendants of Abraham who inherit the promise, but the "children of the promise" -- I'd crossreference Romans 4:9-12 and submit that we believers are those children. The rest of Romans 9 covers some objections that may come up against this and the refutations of those objections.

so again, the entry into the New Covenant is not physical birth, but faith. And thus, i believe that the initiation rite of the New Covenant ought to be predicated on that faith.

i'm not dogmatic about that of course, as i'm not sure the parallel is picture perfect. if i were to find a passage that convinced me of infant baptism, i'd reconsider whether the argument above is cogent.

The purpose of infant baptism should be clarified by the explanation above - particularly with reference to the citizenship understanding. We baptise infants so that they can be made citizens of the kingdom of heaven too. Certainly, understanding baptism as being only a regenerative thing does leave the question open as to why infants (who have not sinned) would need to be baptised... (note that this is how St Augustine derived the doctrine of inherited guilt... he reasoned that because infants needed to be baptised, they must be sinful...)

But you certainly are correct in saying that a person who is baptised as an infant is under an obligation to hold earnestly to their baptism - to live their baptism day-by-day.

Note that if you want to become a citizen of (say) the US as an adult, you have to undergo a period of instruction, make a pledge to uphold the US constitution etc, and only then are you made a citizen. This is what you might call "believer citizenship". But note also that US citizenship can be (and is) conferred on infants who are born to US citizens, so that they may share in the benefits that US citizenship has to offer. The parents of such an infant are expected to bring them up as good US citizens.

while i disagree for reasons given above, this analogy does help. at the very least, the infant baptism view makes sense.

In support of infant baptism, refer again to St Peter's speech early in Acts (v39). The promise is for you and your children.

however, 38 is not just a command to be baptized, but to repent. it would be hard to get an infant to repent. :teeth:

further, he uses the word children, which i presume is more general. i don't know the Greek so i must conceed that the term itself could include infants. however, the stipulation to also repent indicates that this is unlikely. can young children repent? it depends... i don't believe in a rigid age of accountability. some kids, if they are properly taught, can understand the Gospel at an amazingly young age.

[Sheepdog]

1.1 billion Catholics...

:argh: i knew you said that in the thread, but i forgot... i ended up searching for it online and found a figure that said 400mil :hrm:

[Sheepdog]

Whee, haven't posted here in quite awhile. Been working on a book, though my tendency to procrastination has plagued it (a layman's refutation of all heresies).

meaning you are writing one? or reading one? (i can think of a few that are a work to plow through.)

i've always thought it would be cool to write a book, but i don't think i have the patience.

There's two types of grace, sanctifying and actual. Sanctifying grace is that which is infused into our soul to heal us of sin and sanctify us. Actual grace is "a supernatural help of God for salutary acts granted in consideration of the merits of Christ" according to the Catholic Encyclopedia

hmm, interesting. the Actual grace sounds similar to the Arminian doctrine Prevenient grace.

The intellectual assent to the truth that God has revealed. It is a response to grace, for without the promptings of the Holy Spirit it is impossible to believe. To quote St. Aquinas "Therefore faith, as regards the assent which is the chief act of faith, is from God moving man inwardly by grace."

heheh, good to know you all ain't a bunch of stinking Pelagians :smile:

Good things that we do. But we must remember that God is their First Cause (for that matter, every non-evil act has God as the first cause).

this i don't understand well, but probably because i have the philosophical notion of "cause" in mind. do you mean this in the sense that apart from God good works wouldn't occur, or that God "makes" the believer do the good works. (as you can see, i'm still stuck in Calvinism vs. Arminianism mode :teeth:)

Living faith, dead faith. Salvation, considered strictly by itself, is unmerited. But we can merit eternal rewards above and beyond salvation (we do not all shine equally after the glorification of our resurrected bodies).

ooh, ok. yeah, i would agree with that.

i recall we talked about Luther and the indulgences a while back. but i forgot what your view on that was essentially. (Luther was right to an extent, but took things to far, or something like that?) I bring it up because the indulgences seem to be an attempt to bring merit back to the equation. or am i misunderstanding Catholic history?

Have to have the one (and be regenerate) in order to do the other with the possibility of receiving merit.

fair enough.

But the Protestants are. :tongue:

not a fan of Vatican II? :lol:

[spl_cadet]

meaning you are writing one? or reading one? (i can think of a few that are a work to plow through.)

i've always thought it would be cool to write a book, but i don't think i have the patience.

Writing. And yeah, it takes a lot of patience.


this i don't understand well, but probably because i have the philosophical notion of "cause" in mind. do you mean this in the sense that apart from God good works wouldn't occur, or that God "makes" the believer do the good works. (as you can see, i'm still stuck in Calvinism vs. Arminianism mode )

God prompts the believer who participates/cooperates with the grace in order to do the work.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2008 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. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.


i recall we talked about Luther and the indulgences a while back. but i forgot what your view on that was essentially. (Luther was right to an extent, but took things to far, or something like that?) I bring it up because the indulgences seem to be an attempt to bring merit back to the equation. or am i misunderstanding Catholic history?

Yes, it deals with merit and the communion of saints. Basically, there's two parts to punishment for sin. Temporal and eternal. The eternal is forgiven when we are forgiven the sin, but the temporal remains (it's the unhealthy attachment to sin and such that happens when we do sin). We can "work it off" so to speak, through penance and other such actions in our lives. Purgatory, the final cleansing of the soul, purifies us of any remaining punishment. Now when we receive merit, we also receive "time off for good behaviour" to make a bit of an analogy. Now the saints in Heaven do not need that time off, so it is added to the treasury of the Church (along with the infinite merits of Christ), and the Church may, and does, apply them to those seeking them and for the souls in purgatory (as they are part of the communion of saints as well).

Sorry if that doesn't make much sense, I plead "7am" as an excuse :teeth:


not a fan of Vatican II?

No, but I don't have anything against Protestants either, just noting that from our POV you are heretics (one of my best friends is a very good Protestant).

[Sheepdog]

Writing. And yeah, it takes a lot of patience.

ok, kewl.

God prompts the believer who participates/cooperates with the grace in order to do the work.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2008 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. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

ok. that makes sense.

Yes, it deals with merit and the communion of saints. Basically, there's two parts to punishment for sin. Temporal and eternal. The eternal is forgiven when we are forgiven the sin, but the temporal remains (it's the unhealthy attachment to sin and such that happens when we do sin). We can "work it off" so to speak, through penance and other such actions in our lives. Purgatory, the final cleansing of the soul, purifies us of any remaining punishment. Now when we receive merit, we also receive "time off for good behaviour" to make a bit of an analogy. Now the saints in Heaven do not need that time off, so it is added to the treasury of the Church (along with the infinite merits of Christ), and the Church may, and does, apply them to those seeking them and for the souls in purgatory (as they are part of the communion of saints as well).

Sorry if that doesn't make much sense, I plead "7am" as an excuse :teeth:

actually no that's fine. actually it's interesting, a lot of evangelical thinkers make a distinction between eternel effects and temporal effects as well. for instance, i know of a guy who was engaged in several acts of fraud, who became a Christian, repented and turned himself in. we Protestants would say that he was absolutely forgiven in God's eyes, but he would still have to face the consequences before men.

in case you were curious, he served prison time, got out from parole, and then started a foundation where they help authorities and corporations detect fraud. He uses the proceeds to pay back his victims. i don't remember his name, but i could track it down if you really wanted to know.

of course though, we reject the teaching of purgatory, but i consider that a nonessential issue.

No, but I don't have anything against Protestants either, just noting that from our POV you are heretics (one of my best friends is a very good Protestant).

ah, heeheehee. i could have sworn Vatican II withdrew the church's position on Protestants as being heretics? or do you mean "our" in the sense of individual Catholics?

[Nang]

How exactly are you supposed to know that it is false, or know how to refute it, if you don't know precisely what you are dealing with?

But I know exactly what I am dealing with, and have dealt with the errors of the RCC and the EO for over half my (long) life. I know their doctrines and teachings are false, for I depend on the teachings of the Holy Scriptures alone, through the guidance and discernment of the indwelling Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ alone.



Really? Would you mind proving that?

Don't have to . . .Mr. Atheist Thinker . . .


Since I don't want to hijack Sheepdog's thread, please start a new thread on it.


Don't want to and don't plan to, for as I said, I don't want to hear about the false teachings and blasphemies of these ungodly religions.


I'd like to see a comparison of the Catholic view with a step by step examination of the doctrines of Semi-Pelagianism

The term "Semi-Pelagianism" came into being to describe the RCC heresy. There is nothing to compare apart from full-blown Pelagianism . . .but surely you are already aware of what that consists of? If you don't you should quit this inquiry and do some elementary study. If you do know, you are being disingenous and tiresome.


Please quote directly from official Catholic documents or Catechisms when describing Catholic views.

ROFL! And give them voice?

Never.

Don't want to repeat false gospels or give them the time of day . . .

Yuk.

Nang

[spl_cadet]

Coward. Either back up your statements or keep your mouth shut (or hands off the keyboard, but you know what I mean). Bearing false witness is a sin after all.

[Nang]

Coward.

Ad hominem response. Sign of intellectual weakness . . .


Either back up your statements or keep your mouth shut (or hands off the keyboard, but you know what I mean).

Yeah.

I know exactly what you mean.

You mean to post your false religious views, while also refusing dissent.

Dream on, dear catholic fool!

The Hound of Heaven will not let you go far without sniffing your trail!



false witness is a sin after all.

Sure is.

But false witness is judged according to the Holy Scriptures, alone.

Just because you believe in the RCC teachings does not make those who come with the true Gospel of Jesus Christ (Grace Alone) guilty of false witness against the error you have fallen victim to.

Nang

[George Blaisdell]

They (and all other false religions) believe in a justification (through faith) of original sin, but in order to assuredly see eternal life, one must do good works until the end of their lives.
Nang

John 3:19
This is the JUDGEMENT: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their DEEDS were evil.

We simply hold to the moral accountability which states that WHAT YOU DO MATTERS... And that it matters all the way to the end of your life. And that if you DO evil, you will lose whatever righteousness God has given you.

Christ's words are: "Depart from Me, ye WORKERS of iniquity. I never knew you."

What you do does indeed matter, for your salvation. Christians, in denying themselves, and taking up their own cross, and following Christ, are called to DO the works that have been prepared for them to do, and NOT to do the works of unrighteousness...

And if one does NOT do these works, persevering to the end, as Paul teaches us, then one CANNOT expect salvation...

Do you really think you are saved regardless of what you DO???

We were lost by an act of will by Adam that turned him away from God.
We are found by Christ on the Cross, but only IF one is WILLING. These are Christ's words:

ei tis qelei

"IF anyone is WILLING" ["after Me to be following, let him first deny himself, take up his own cross, and follow Me."]

And yes, your best efforts are but worthless rags, yesterdays garbage, yet without these, your best efforts, being faithful in small things, greater things will NOT be added to you...

Arsenios

[Sheepdog]

Nang, i must ask you that if you do not want to contribute to the thread anymore than to aggitate the nonprotestant Christians, that you take it to the locker room and not post in this thread anymore.

BTW, thank you George Blaisdell.

[Nang]

John 3:19
This is the JUDGEMENT: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their DEEDS were evil.

This is description of reprobates; the unjustified; the ungodly rejecting the light of the Son of God come into the world. It does not describe elect Christians at all.

We simply hold to the moral accountability which states that WHAT YOU DO MATTERS... And that it matters all the way to the end of your life.

What a professing Christian does and how he walks, matters, for his works prove and give evidence of his faith. One must walk the talk, else one's profession of faith is "dead." This is the teaching of James.



And that if you DO evil, you will lose whatever righteousness God has given you.

If one persists in practificing evil, while professing to be a disciple of Christ, he will be judged a hypocrite and punished apart from righteousness. This kind were never gifted with Christ's righteousness and Spirit to begin with:

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us." I John 2:19

However, a true Christian who has been born again by the Spirit of God and who has the Holy Spirit permanently indwelling and abiding within; and whom God has imputed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ, will not practice evil and will surely persevere due to the guarantee of God.

"Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him, and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God." I John 3:9

". . In whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory." Ephesians 2:13b&14

A Christian cannot lose the righteousness of Christ gifted to him by God. A Christian cannot live a life of unrepentant sin because of Christ abiding. A Christian can rest in these truths and covenant promises of God.





Christ's words are: "Depart from Me, ye WORKERS of iniquity. I never knew you."


These are the words that all false professors of Christ will hear in return for their hypocrisy and lack of faith and rest in the Lord. These will be the religious activists, who depend upon their good works on this earth to find merit with God, rather than simply resting in the good works of Jesus Christ by faith.

What you do does indeed matter, for your salvation. Christians, in denying themselves, and taking up their own cross, and following Christ, are called to DO the works that have been prepared for them to do, and NOT to do the works of unrighteousness...

You are preaching the false gospel of "works righteousness." This is self-salvation.

And if one does NOT do these works, persevering to the end, as Paul teaches us, then one CANNOT expect salvation...

Do you really think you are saved regardless of what you DO???

I believe I was saved by the grace of God. I was saved on the basis of the works that Jesus Christ did, not my own works. Jesus Christ lived the perfect life of obedience, representing me before God, accomplishing a righteousness I never could hope to accomplish. Jesus Christ fulfilled all the Law (human accountibility) required of me by God, on my behalf. Then He died for my sins, causing remission of all my unworthiness and sinfulness, justifying my soul with God the Father, making me fit to receive the imputation of His righteousness; thereby permanently working my salvation for me.

We were lost by an act of will by Adam that turned him away from God.
We are found by Christ on the Cross, but only IF one is WILLING. These are Christ's words:

ei tis qelei

"IF anyone is WILLING" ["after Me to be following, let him first deny himself, take up his own cross, and follow Me."


But no man is willing.

"There is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God." Romans 3:11

It takes the grace of God spiritually resurrecting sinners to new life by His Holy Spirit, and creating a new heart within that soul, to make a person willing to serve, love, and obey God. Without the new life and new heart, no man, from his human nature, wills to love God. The required faith that provides this divine willingness comes only by the grace and power of God.


And yes, your best efforts are but worthless rags, yesterdays garbage, yet without these, your best efforts, being faithful in small things, greater things will NOT be added to you...

Arsenios

You burden men by placing them under the yoke of the Law when you demand they do good works in order to actually achieve and persevere unto salvation.

This is not right. It denies grace.

Rather, Christians are instructed repeatedly in God's Word to live by faith and not by works of the Law. In fact, believers are commanded to "rest" in the good works of Jesus Christ and "cease" from their own efforts:

"Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it. For indeed the gospel was preched to us as well as to them (Jews); but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. For we who believe do enter that rest . . .there remains therefore a rest for the people of God. For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did His. Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of unbelief." Hebrews 4:1-3a, 9-11

Nang

[George Blaisdell]

We were lost by an act of will by Adam that turned him away from God.
We are found by Christ on the Cross, but only IF one is WILLING. These are Christ's words:

ει τισ θελει

"IF anyone is WILLING" ["after Me to be following, let him first deny himself, take up his own cross, and follow Me."



But no man is willing.


Are you calling Christ a liar?

This is Christ's great call to follow Him, and the very first word He utters is the word IF... The whole of salvation is a huge IF - Indeed, it is Christ's IF... It is OUR IF...

There is no part of scripture that you can bring forth that will deny this IF...


"There is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God." Romans 3:11


Do you think that this prophetic saying of Isaiah contradicts Christ's IF??? If yes, then you do not understand what you are seeing...


It takes the grace of God spiritually resurrecting sinners to new life by His Holy Spirit, and creating a new heart within that soul, to make a person willing to serve, love, and obey God. Without the new life and new heart, no man, from his human nature, wills to love God. The required faith that provides this divine willingness comes only by the grace and power of God.


I think, perhaps, you are confusing the calling of God, in which He makes known to a man His grace, holiness and power, and the response across time of that man to this calling. For many are called, yet but few are chosen, and this because of the narrowness of the way, and the fact that for most, when the initial fervor has worn off, the salvation that they thought they had safely in their possession, slips away because of their lack of either spiritual teaching and discipleship, or because of laziness... Which is an issue of willingness...

And yes, even to will is given of God, yet the initial willingness must be provided by the person, for in this is the small that is responsibly attended, that the great be given by God, and this which is great, is the willingness to shoulder the arduous and narrow way of the discipleship of self-denial, and the voluntary shouldering of one's own cross, in obedience to the commandments of our Lord... Received through His holy body, the Church...

So that if you are willing, but weak in your willingness, and thereby unable, Christ will give you the willingness to be able... That is a part of our freedom in Christ...

And the great call to the Apostles was to "Be discipling all the nations, teaching them all that I have commanded you, to be doing..."

Now where, in the Bible, do you have a list of all the commandments of Christ? And the instructions on how to be doing them?

Do you have your own personal list? Or does your Church? What are they?

Arsenios

[Nang]

Are you calling Christ a liar?

This is Christ's great call to follow Him, and the very first word He utters is the word IF... The whole of salvation is a huge IF - Indeed, it is Christ's IF... It is OUR IF...


All of God's Word to mankind is a revelation of what man should do as well as what man has failed to do; plus the remedy (the Gospel of Jesus Christ). All the Law is uttered by God to give sinners knowledge of their sin. And those who receive conviction by the Holy Spirit of their sin through the Law (knowledge of what they should do), will cast themselves upon God's mercy and grace and thereby be saved by faith.

There is no part of scripture that you can bring forth that will deny this IF...

The Holy Scriptures are replete with the failures of mankind living up to the requirements of God. One example:

"Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin." Romans 3:19&20

"Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith." Galatians 3:24

The Bible is full of instruction giving readers knowledge of their sins; and the promises of salvation through the grace and forgiveness of God. (In fact, that is the very purpose of the written Word from God!) For example, one great passage:

"The free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification." Romans 5:15&16



Do you think that this prophetic saying of Isaiah contradicts Christ's IF??? If yes, then you do not understand what you are seeing...

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Isaiah's words were inspired by the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ. Isaiah spoke for Jesus Christ, as did all the Psalms and Prophets. (Luke 24:44)

There is NO contradiction in the Word of God.

If you see contradictions or believe that I am seeing contradictions, then it is you who is blinded to the big picture.



I think, perhaps, you are confusing the calling of God, in which He makes known to a man His grace, holiness and power, and the response across time of that man to this calling. For many are called, yet but few are chosen,

How do you get to "responses" from "chosen?"

Either God chooses who will hear His call (by giving new spiritual ears to hear) or God does not because most are not "chosen" to inherit everlasting life. "Responses" will bear fruit as to whether one has been chosen by God, or not. If a man hears the call of God and believes unto righteousness, it is because the Holy Spirit has regenerated that man to new life. And that new creature will exhibit evidence of his spiritual conversion for the rest of his life. But in no way is a sinner saved by his responses apart from God first choosing him, representing him in the life of Christ, justifying him in His death, demonstrating the power of new life in the resurrection of Jesus, and giving him a new heart, mind, eyes and ears to comprehend the Gospel preached.

Those who do not hear the call of God, prove they have not been spiritually renewed by God, but left in their blindness:

"Their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament because the veil is taken away in Christ. . . Even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them." II Cor. 3:14, 4:3&4

Only God can lift this veil.






and this because of the narrowness of the way, and the fact that for most, when the initial fervor has worn off, the salvation that they thought they had safely in their possession, slips away because of their lack of either spiritual teaching and discipleship, or because of laziness... Which is an issue of willingness...

A man truly reborn by the Spirit and power of God cannot "slip away." That is impossible, for it is the eternal life of God that abides in him.

The Christian is promised everlasting life, not temporary spiritual experiences that he must work at keeping.

Yes, many profess faith in Jesus Christ, but then fall away. These were never saved to begin with. (I John 2:19) They were only kidding themselves.





And yes, even to will is given of God, yet the initial willingness must be provided by the person,

This is impossible, for the human will is held in bondage to sin, death and the devil. Only when the sinner is saved by the will and power of God, and redeemed from this bondage, is there any ability to will to serve God. Have you ever read Luther's "Bondage Of The Will?" I would suggest you do.




Now where, in the Bible, do you have a list of all the commandments of Christ?

Matthew 22:37-40


And the instructions on how to be doing them?

Galatians 5:16-25, Romans 8:8-17

[Jezz]

well i suppose it would depend. it does show that the Holy Spirit doesn't necessarily come the second one starts to believe.
Then doesn't that by itself blow away the Protestant idea that all Christians have the Holy Spirit, and that all you need to do to be a Christian is believe?

i guess the key would be whether Luke here is reporting history that is peculiar to the infant church or if what we see here should be normative. i guess i'd have to study more before i come to a conclusion on this one.
What good is the testimony of Scripture and Sola Scriptura if you can discount anything that happens in it as being "peculiar to the infant church"? :smile:

Chrismation/confirmation can be traced from this point in the NT through to quite a bit later. There is no hint that the story is peculiar.

interestingly, Acts 10 seems to provide a counterexample:(44) While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all those who heard the message (45) The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were greatly astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, (46) for they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, (47) "No one can withhold the water for these people to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" (48) So he gave orders to have them baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay for several days. Acts 10:44-48. i would be interested in what your thoughts are on this section.
It's not exactly a counterexample - it's something of a red herring. The Protestant (non-sacramentalist) position is that the Spirit always accompanies faith. It only takes one counterexample to disprove a universal claim such as this.

On the other hand, I never claimed that the Spirit comes only via Chrismation. I do believe that this is they way the Spirit is normally imparted - that is the way that the Church is authorised to impart it. But God is not bound by these rules. I would argue, however, that such instances of breaking the rules are exceptional (and St Peter clearly seemed to think it was not a normal occurrence).

i read a good article on Acts 2:38 one time, suggesting that the Greek doesn't support the regenerist interpretation. i'll have to see if i can dig it up again (i could have sworn it had to do with eis, the word for "for", but i don't remember the details so i shouldn't comment more on it than that).
Funny, I'd have thought that eis would actually strengthen the regenerist position. Eis implies movement into - being baptised into the forgiveness of sins implies that it is baptism which is actually moving the person from one state into another.

yeah. i actually spoke to a Lutheran friend one time on infant baptism. we agreed, at least, that it isn't just symbolic as some Evangelicals say.
Cool.

my thinking has been like the above, though i view it more in terms of community than in national terms. (although in a sense, the Kingdom of God is just one big community.) often, ingroups had some sort of initiation ceremony for new members. one modern equivalent to this would be college fraternities, some of which have some bizaare rituals. in the first century they would have been more common especially for special groups, like the Essenes, Pharisees, etc. Even if we look at Judaism proper, circumcism was an initiation rite, which was even expected of Gentil converts.
Yep, exactly. But do note, that a nation is really nothing other than a big community, so it's not like we're talking about two different concepts. Corporations can be seen similarly (note the etymological connection between "corporation" and body (corpus) - the Church is the Christ Corporation... :smile:)

so, i have for the most part seen baptism as the rite of entry into the church -- and when i say church, i don't mean any building or structure, but the body of Christ.
Cool, then you are in agreement with what I said. But then, if you deny infant baptism (which you seem to do below), then doesn't that seem to imply that infants cannot become part of the Church?

Note that in Orthodoxy, the building in which a Church gathers is not called a Church - it is called the temple.

now, i've seen other people draw a parallel between circumcism and baptism, and from that more explicitely conclude that since circumcism was performed on infants, we should likewise baptize infants. but the irony here is that while i agree that there is a parallel to be drawn here, it would work against infant baptism. you see, Judaism was a heavily family-oriented religion. we see this a lot in the Old Testament, especially the veneration of Abraham as the Father of all the Jewish people. also and more importantly, anyone born of a Jew was born into Judaism. They had converts of course, but in general entry into the Jewish religion was by physical birth. So in that way, it makes sense for the intiation rite of circumcism to be performed while the male was an infant. (though i doubt they had it in mind, but from what i hear it would have been less painful to have done to an infant than an adult.)
You bring up a good point about Judaism - yes it was a heavily family oriented religion. But Orthodox Christianity is exactly the same! Anyone born of Orthodox parents is considered Orthodox, although they don't become full members until they are baptised. That is why in Orthodox countries, everyone considers themselves Orthodox (even if they don't go to Church) - they are Orthodox by descent.

Note that there is a "rite of Churching" in Orthodoxy which celebrates this. In Judaism, after giving birth a mother is ceremonially unclean for 40 days. After this time, she would present her child at the temple for the first time (see Luke 2:12-40). In Orthodoxy, this practice has been retained. A mother comes to Church for the first time 40 days after the child's birth and her child is presented in front of the altar.

but what is the means of entry into the church? or perhaps i should reframe the question: what must happen before one can "see" or enter the Kingdom of God? Jesus answered that question: "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." John 3:3, NIV. So whereas one was often physically born into Judaism, one must be spiritually born into Christianity. Now of course, a discussion of the chicken and egg issue here (does God regenerate those who believe, or does He regenerate sinners, causing them to believe) is out of the scope of this topic, but at the very least it's safe to say faith and being "born of the Spirit" go hand in hand. thus, i'd argue that if indeed we should use circumcism as a precedent of a sort for baptism, then the prerequisite for baptism should be spiritual birth, not physical birth, into the New Covenant family.
??? Sorry, I think you've lost me somewhere there. I think that being born of the water and the Spirit can be read much more naturally as a reference to Baptism (water) and Chrismation (Spirit). And once a person has been Baptised and Chrismated, they can see the kingdom of God, because they are a citizen.

As for your comment 'at the very least it's safe to say faith and "being born of the Spirit" go hand in hand'... well, the example I gave in Acts 8:14-17 shows that this isn't safe at all. The people in that passage did have faith - but they didn't receive the Holy Spirit until Ss Peter and John laid their hands on them.

I think we also see a similar theme in Romans. While Paul is careful not to disparage the natural descendance of the Jews, one of the notions Paul keeps coming back to is the primacy of faith, such that even the Gentile is an heir even despite not being circumcized. I believe this culminates into Romans 9 -- I don't know what the Orthodox interpretation of this chapter is, but my understanding now is that Paul starts by explaining why the word of God had not failed, even though so many Jews rejected their messiah. Paul answers by noting that it is not the physical descendants of Abraham who inherit the promise, but the "children of the promise" -- I'd crossreference Romans 4:9-12 and submit that we believers are those children. The rest of Romans 9 covers some objections that may come up against this and the refutations of those objections.
The Orthodox interpretation is similar, but the "children of the promise" are not the people of the Old Covenant, but of the New Covenant - ie, the Church (bearing in mind that, from the Orthodox POV, the Orthodox Church is the Church).

so again, the entry into the New Covenant is not physical birth, but faith. And thus, i believe that the initiation rite of the New Covenant ought to be predicated on that faith.

i'm not dogmatic about that of course, as i'm not sure the parallel is picture perfect. if i were to find a passage that convinced me of infant baptism, i'd reconsider whether the argument above is cogent.

...

while i disagree for reasons given above, this analogy does help. at the very least, the infant baptism view makes sense.
Hmm, I'm not quite sure that I've followed this bit in the end, but I think I've dealt with your objections above.

however, 38 is not just a command to be baptized, but to repent. it would be hard to get an infant to repent. :teeth:
It is easy to get an infant to repent. They have no false beliefs or sins to repent of! Likewise, it is much easier for infants to have faith, because they don't have all the baggage that comes with a lifetime of sin and wrongful thinking. "Whoever does not come to the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it..."

further, he uses the word children, which i presume is more general. i don't know the Greek so i must conceed that the term itself could include infants.
Yes, it is the word "children", and it is general enough to include infants. It is also noteworthy that St Peter makes no reference to any age limit. He does not say: "and to your children, if they are old enough to understand".

however, the stipulation to also repent indicates that this is unlikely. can young children repent? it depends... i don't believe in a rigid age of accountability. some kids, if they are properly taught, can understand the Gospel at an amazingly young age.
I dealt with this above. Yes, young children can repent - indeed, it is much easier for them to repent. They have less to repent for, and less to impede them.

Also note: understanding is not necessary for faith, so I think you are going a bit awry by making "understanding" a prerequisite for faith. An infant trusts their parents (especially their mother) from before birth, even though it does not yet intellectually understand the concept of "parenthood". Understanding becomes more important for adults, who need to understand their intellectual hangups that are preventing them from trusting God as an infant does. An infant who has no such hangups has no such need.

For example: tell a three year old: "this is the body and blood of Christ". And they will say: "Ok, I believe it." They have no intellectual hangups that prevent so many adults from accepting the mystery of the Eucharist. They simply have faith that it is so. As noted above, everyone who enters the kingdom of God needs to enter it with childlike faith.

[George Blaisdell]

:

There is NO contradiction in the Word of God.

If you see contradictions or believe that I am seeing contradictions, then it is you who is blinded to the big picture.
[QUOTE]

Well, YOU are the one saying that only those who have been regenerated and saved CAN be willing to follow Christ.

And Christ says, in Mt. 16:24, "If ANYONE IS WILLING after me to be following, let him first deny himself, take up his own cross, and follow me."

Now the key word here is tis. It means ANYONE... You you are contradicting Christ when you say that only those who have been regenerated, born again, and saved, are THEN ABLE to be willing to do what Christ tells us ANYONE can be willing to do...

And I believe Christ, and not you...

And I really think that you do too...

Which is why I wonder at your understanding...

[QUOTE]
How do you get to "responses" from "chosen?"


The ones who respond to the call according to Christ are the ones chosen...


Either God chooses who will hear His call (by giving new spiritual ears to hear) or God does not because most are not "chosen" to inherit everlasting life.


Christ's words are "If ANYONE is willing..." This contradicts your understanding, because Christ is God, and places the following of him upon the initial shoulders of the willingness of ANYONE to follow Him...


But in no way is a sinner saved by his responses apart from God


Well, we agree, that nothing is apart from God, and it is not his responses that save the sinner, but IF he is not willing to follow Christ, he will be lost. And IF he IS WILLING to follow Christ, he will be saved.


A man truly reborn by the Spirit and power of God cannot "slip away." That is impossible, for it is the eternal life of God that abides in him.


1Cor9:26Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. 27No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.

You see, even Paul knows that his salvation can be denied should he run aimlessly and fight like a man beating the air...

Why do you contradict Paul?


The Christian is promised everlasting life, not temporary spiritual experiences that he must work at keeping.


Yes, in the age to come - But in this life, we are commanded to not run aimlessly, but to persevere to the end, LEST WE BE DISQUALIFIED...

Why contradict Paul?


Yes, many profess faith in Jesus Christ, but then fall away. These were never saved to begin with. (I John 2:19) They were only kidding themselves.


What about Paul? Was HE kidding himself when he tells us that his salvation is dependent, in that it can be lost, upon what he DOES, and not upon the actions of Christ REGARDLESS of what he does??? Nowhere in the Bible do you find salvation apart from conduct.

And Christ's words are: "IF ANYONE IS WILLING..."


Have you ever read Luther's "Bondage Of The Will?" I would suggest you do.


I follow the doctrines of Christ in His Holy Body, the Church, and not the mere doctrines of mere men outside the communion of this Church...


Matthew 22:37-40


That covers the Law [of Moses] and the Prophets - Do you really think that it is a complete list of all of the commandments of Christ, which is what He charged the Apostles to disciple the nations in??


Arsenios

[Nang]

tis[/greek]. It means ANYONE... You you are contradicting Christ when you say that only those who have been regenerated, born again, and saved, are THEN ABLE to be willing to do what Christ tells us ANYONE can be willing to do...

Jesus directed that statement to His disciples, signifying the kind of life they should be willing to live in His name. Jesus was declaring that "any one of them" (His followers) could live this kind of holy life. The context of the teaching clearly shows Jesus did not direct His comments to the world at large.

Christ's words are "If ANYONE is willing..." This contradicts your understanding, because Christ is God, and places the following of him upon the initial shoulders of the willingness of ANYONE to follow Him...

No man is willing to follow Jesus Christ apart from being regenerated first by His Holy Spirit. The old, stoney, wicked heart is at enmity with God and opposes God. It does not want to follow God. Only believers who have received new hearts and new minds find a new willingness to follow, obey and live the new spiritual life.

Men do not ~get~ saved by doing good.
Men do not ~stay~ saved by doing good.
Men only do good because they have already ~been~ saved.



Well, we agree, that nothing is apart from God, and it is not his responses that save the sinner, but IF he is not willing to follow Christ, he will be lost. And IF he IS WILLING to follow Christ, he will be saved.

We are close to agreement, here.

It is not his responses that saves the sinner.

If he is not willing to follow Christ, he will be lost.

If he is willing to follow Christ, he proves Christ has saved his soul.

Willingess to obey is faithful evidence and proof of salvation (This is the teaching of James)



1Cor9:26Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. 27No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.

You see, even Paul knows that his salvation can be denied should he run aimlessly and fight like a man beating the air...

Why do you contradict Paul?

I don't.

I just disagree as to whom these Scriptures are directed. Paul is teaching that the Christian will evidence the saving grace of God by running a proper race; submitting himself as a "slave" of righteousness for the cause of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. (Romans 6:16-23)

I believe Paul directs this admonition against hypocrites within the Church at Corinth who professed faith in the Lord, but who "beat at the air" doing works of carnal flesh, without spiritual knowledge or discernment.




But in this life, we are commanded to not run aimlessly, but to persevere to the end, LEST WE BE DISQUALIFIED...

Why contradict Paul?

I do not contradict Paul.

Christians will prove they are truly disciples of Jesus Christ by their perseverance; which is guaranteed to them by the indwelling of Christ's Holy Spirit. (Ephesians 1:13&14, II Cor. 1:21, 5:5)

It is proof of salvation, when the abiding Spirit of Christ preserves souls in the faith unto the end of this life.

Those who do not persevere manifest that the Spirit of Christ never dwelt in them to preserve them unto everlasting life.

Good works are evidence and proof of salvation ~and~ sanctification by the grace of God alone. . .never the means of salvation, sanctification, or enduring unto life eternal.



Nowhere in the Bible do you find salvation apart from conduct.

Agreed.

What we are debating is the significance of conduct.

You say good conduct is necessary to get saved and stay saved.

I am saying good conduct is necessary to prove one is saved.

(One who professes faith in Christ, but does not exhibit good conduct, is a fake and a liar. His faith is "dead." [James 2:14-26])






That covers the Law [of Moses] and the Prophets - Do you really think that it is a complete list of all of the commandments of Christ, which is what He charged the Apostles to disciple the nations in??

Actually, I believe every word in the Bible constitues the "Law" (statutes, commands) of God.

And I also believe that Jesus Christ alone kept all the Word of God perfectly. He is the One who has fulfilled every single Scripture.

I rest in His obedience to all God's commands. His grace has imputed that righteous obedience to my account before God. I am justified by the good and perfect works of Jesus Christ, to His eternal glory and praise!

That does not mean that I do not love His Law or that I ignore His holy statutes, let alone live a life of disobedience and practice of sin. My response to God's grace that saved me, is a love of God and His Word and a desire and willingness and delight and security in living my life accordingly.

"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not!

How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?

. . .Do not present yourselves as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of rightousness to God . . .

But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death, but the GIFT of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Romans 6:1&2, 13, 22&23

George, this reality is a gift, no longer a demand of the Law.

This condition of serving righteousness is a spiritual privilege and natural outcome of having been justified and born again (spiritually resurrected) by the power of God. It is literally a "given" that Christians will exhibit willingness to serve the righteousness of God, apart from requirement.

Jesus Christ met all the requirements of human accountability before God by coming in flesh . . .on our behalf.

Godly sovereignty and human accountability is reconciled and perfected in the Person of Jesus Christ (vicariously, on behalf of the elect people of God).

Believers rest in His accomplishments and fulfillment of all God's commandments by faith; which will manifest and produce the natural fruits of His abiding Holy Spirit in their earthly lives.

Nang