The Gospel According to Catholic's

[RBerman]

At best Calvin tells us that the heathen tells us that even those who live like animals retain some sense of religion.

That's what we're debating, right? Calvin believes that everyone has some level of spiritual awareness, even those who, in his estimation, might have been expected to be least likely to have such awareness.

I'd concede that Calvin may not have conceived that it was possible for a man not to know of God or have no religion, but he did give the proviso that if it was possible such people would be of the "dullest tribes farthest removed from civilisation". It just happens that such tribes were discovered on a continent almost the size of the USA which was once "farthest removed from civilisation".

Those people are not truly unaware of God in their hearts though, and they are certainly not without conscious spiritual awareness in a general sense. But even if you were right that they truly have no awareness of God deep down, then Calvin is actually giving men credit for more spiritual awareness than they actually possess, whereas your original claim was that Calvin doesn't give men enough credit. You appear to have inverted your position.

[Maxentius]

Hello Maxentius,

I know how time consuming these posts can be, so I would like to thank you for your time and effort, and indirectly making me check my facts ;-)

No problem, and I was actually thinking of making my posts smaller. After a few back-and-forths, it can be difficult to understand the flow of conversation.

Fair comment. Still, the various accounts I've read all point to Luther as the central focus. Maybe because it was he who first stired the pot...From what I gather it was initially Luther who appealed for a general council...

Yes, he did so. I think what is missing is the historical context. At the time of the Reformation, and indeed for a couple of centuries before. there was a conciliar movement, which basically states that the pope is "after" the councils in authority. That is one key part of a "free council." The pope obviously rejected it (this would be the German council), and despite the claims of the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Council of Trent was not a "free" council in the conciliar sense of the word. In an case, the Council of Trent also dealt with the other protestant movements, and indeed was held after Luther was already dead.

I may have an issue with that idea. Abram wasn't exclusively privy to "the word of God". In Gen 12 & 20 YHWH also speaks to the Kings that Abram had compromised (see below).

Abraham, like all believers, was called by God--Genesis 12. What ever God reveals or says to us is "the word of God" for the magisterial reformers. Thus, when ever we see someone believing in or acting in accordance with God's will and calling, he or she was already called by God in some way. There are some exceptions, such as the priest Melchizedek, King of Salem, where we have no explicit record. But with the NT clarifying things, we can say that indeed all who believed were called either directly by God or through means--such as teaching and/or sacramental acts. In our view, this is the same "economy" we witness today. Thus when my parents brought me to be baptized, the word of God came to me and I was reborn. When I receive absolution for my sins the word of God comes to me via the means of the minister and my sins are forgiven. This is why I used Abraham as an example--even he, a great prophet was called out, and did not have the innate ability to believe in God until that gift was given to him.

We believe the difference between those in Christ, or those in the OT who believed YHWH, and those who don't is not something which makes the first group special, but simply the grace of God. The believer heard the word of God in what ever form, and they either believed it or they didn't. In Abraham's case, given your speculation, he was exposed to the word of God from childhood, i.e. he had already been "worked upon" by the Holy Spirit and was by then a willing follower of YHWH. There are other cases where God turns an enemy into a follower: St. Paul comes to mind.

There is nothing in scripture that I'm aware of that faintly suggests that Abram became a "new man" after his encounters with YHWH. In fact the OT texts would indicate Abram was a obsessed with his own safety to the extent he did not consider the impacts on anyone else, and though obedient to God, the biblical account indicates he didn't trust God to protect him!

Yes, simul justus et peccator. If we say Abraham is not righteous, don't we consider St. Paul to have been wrong? On the other hand, does a righteous man behave as Abraham did? Teh answer is right in Romans 4:

Romans 4:2

For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness."

© source where applicable

Abraham's righteousness was not due to his behavior, but because he "believed God." This does not mean his behavior was never righteous--far from it, but that despite his bad behavior he is still righteous in God's sight due to his believing God. This is, in a nutshell, a good example of simul justus et peccator--the believer is righteous as touches his relationship with the Father through Christ, but a sinner because his flesh still wars against the new man. This conflict will be resolved on the last day, but for now the fact we still struggle with sin would seem to mean none of us are righteous--yet we are righteous.

Another analogy is the purity of the Church. The Church is, according to St. Paul, without blemish (Eph. 7:26-27). Yet if I look around in any church, I see blemishes all around. (Indeed, I see blemishes in myself). This doctrine goes hand-in-hand with our wider discussion regarding "free will."

Imu, the RCC response would be that before rebirth we are willing to believe (and so at that point we are drawn by the Father to Christ - Jn 6:44), but on rebirth we surrender our will and conform to Christ (eg: Phil 2:5).

Yes, this is one reason why the RC merit language is still problematic. Basically, if I understand aright, there is enough of a will to turn toward God within us so that when we are drawn to the Father, we respond positively. Thus, our acceptance of being called "merits" more grace--and we receive grace to "surrender our wills" to God. The magisterial protestant Reformation denies this and says that regarding the things of God we are unwilling to believe in and trust God until after we are reborn and have the "mind of Christ." There is no merit involved, it all depends upon the grace of Gid. Nor has God decided to accept particular acts as meritorious by grace--he raises the christian from spiritual death by his word, through grace.

Imo, it is a contradiction of terms. We are either one together, existing for mutual benefit, or we exist for ourselves. I admit it is a matter of semantics, but I've come to discover that in theology words matter, in this case individual can connotate independent.

It can, but I see it in more systematic terms--cells make tissue which make organs which make systems which make an organism. (At least the more complex ones...) The cells, tissues, organs etc. are individual, but not really "independent." A respiratory system without a circulatory system is pretty useless. Thus, we are individuals with individual gifts but we form one body, the Church. In this way we can maintain that God calls individuals and calls the church into existence. So, if we really have "free will" to choose or reject God I still think that this makes the existence of the Church contingent on the will of man and not on the will of God--all he can do is call us then it is up to us to respond and through merit earn more grace--or perhaps not earn more grace through merit.

Would you provide a scripture that would support that notion. Jesus prayed that his followers would be one as he and his father were one. In Trinitarian thought while there are three hypostases there is only one God.

I will use the Trinity analogy: There is one God but three persons, the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, and the spirit is not the Father--yet we speak of one God but in prayer we can address the persons as individuals. Like the Trinity, the church is a unity of persons. I do not think "self seekers" is an necessary connotation of "individual." My point was always that the church is a composite unity.

Not that I am aware of...for something to be considered infallible it has to be considered irrevocable.

I was thinking of Unam Sanctam--a papal bull which is accepted as an infallible proclamation--wherein the EOC is explicitly stated to bot be of the sheep of Christ. Only those in fellowship with the pope are of the sheep of Christ. Now, this particular statement has been rescinded, but it would be difficult to read the bull which is accepted as infallible and come to a non-heretical conclusion. Thus we have a part-infallible and part fallible document. Separating the wheat from the chaff can be difficult even within an RC framework.

I'm unaware of the Holy Spirit being active before Pentecost. John 16 would indicate that he was yet to be sent...but still direct activity of YHWH was at work.

There are several OT references to the Spirit of the Lord.

As for David's repentence, in my reading, it was a repentence of fear of reprisal. However, also in my reading, David developed a healthy fear of God, which led him appreciate God's justice and so he developed devotion to his God. So I guess I would say David became righteous through his experience of YHWH's activity, but as I said I don't recall the OT ever declaring his righteous.

Your description of David's walk in the OT sounds a lot like Luther's Law/Gospel dialectic--the Law terrorizes the conscience, the gospel is then believed.

Is God just or unjust? Have a think on the parable at Mt 25:14-30. Allocations and rewards vary according to how much one is a "good and faithful servant"

And yet Jesus told a parable where all workers were paid the same wage even though some only worked a little while. In any case, a reward for good works is not the same as awarding justification based upon one's works.

What does scripture say on the matter? The philosophical position holds there is no way we can indebt God = he can never owe us anything (both RCC & Protestants agree on that, as you indicate below).

Isaiah 64:6 "We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment." (rather more "earthy" in the original Hebrew if my pastor is correct).

Lule 17:10 "So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.'"

These are OTH. But I think the principle is clear--our works are not really able to cause God to "reward" us with more grace.

So the RCC Catechism says! While God is under no obligation, the indications from scripture is that he freely rewards those that please him. 1 Thess 5:23 seems to indicate that there is a progression in God's gift (see bottom of this post).

Yes, but it works out quite differently, as I pointed out above. The merit system is at the heart of the issue after almost 500 years.

If so there is no salvation for us. See Mt 25:30, it is the "unprofitable servant" that is cast out into the outer darkness, whereas the "profitable servants" are rewarded according to their accomplishments (Mt 25:20-23).

Only if one is judged by ones works. If one is righteous through faith, it works out differently. And as Jesus himself said, we are all unprofitable servants. In any case, I do not think the parable of the talents is dealing with works/merit o much as faith in God--

matt 25:24-27

He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, 'Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.' But his master answered him, 'You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest.

© source where applicable

(emph. added)

The servant was faithless not because he did not do enough, but because even though he knew the qualities of his master, he buried the talent. He did not have faith.

There is no hint that there is no recognition or otherwise of the performance of our duties by the master (God). Jesus gives other examples where the masters gives recognition to the Stewards and rewards them accordingly.

Recognition, even reward, is not justification. That is sanctification. It really comes down to the merit system, IMO.

[apostoli]

That's what we're debating, right? Calvin believes that everyone has some level of spiritual awareness, even those who, in his estimation, might have been expected to be least likely to have such awareness.

Imu, Calvin advocated that man had a purely intellectual comprehension of God, but because of their destitution they could not comprehend God as he is unless God intervened - in short man has no "spiritual awareness", because man is not "spiritual" but "temporal" (cerebral).

Those people are not truly unaware of God in their hearts though

Seems they were for upto 75,000 years according to anthropologists, and other scientists. As an aside: anthropologists say they remained, especially the desert tribes, the most primitive people on earth into the early 20th century. Genetic studies have shown the Australian Aborigine to be isolated from all other racial groups. The point being: whatever timeframe is given to them, they have been isolated from the world since before the first civilisations arose on earth

and they are certainly not without conscious spiritual awareness in a general sense.

Since white settlement in Oz and the influence of the missionaries, they probably have developed a "conscious spiritual awareness" (God consciousness), before white settlement the evidence suggests otherwise - they definitely did not and do not in their "Dreamtime" conceive of an absolute creator God.

But even if you were right that they [at a time] truly have no awareness of God deep down, then Calvin is actually giving men credit for more spiritual awareness than they actually possess, whereas your original claim was that Calvin doesn't give men enough credit. You appear to have inverted your position.

Nope! My proposition has been that Calvin did not grant "spiritual awareness" to man unless God intervened. It is possible that we are talking past each other, so the problem might be resolved if you define what you mean by "spiritual awareness". It is the word "spiritual" I believe Calvin would object to (Personally, I don't have a problem with it)...

Calvin suggested at the beginning of 1:3:1...

"there exists in the human minds and indeed by natural instinct, some sense of Deity, we hold to be beyond dispute, since God himself, to prevent any man from pretending ignorance, has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead"

At the end of 1:3:1 Calvin concludes...

"Since, then, there never has been, from the very first, any quarter of the globe, any city, any household even, without religion, this amounts to a tacit confession, that a sense of Deity is inscribed on every heart. Nay, even idolatry is ample evidence of this fact. For we know how reluctant man is to lower himself, in order to set other creatures above him. Therefore, when he chooses to worship wood and stone rather than be thought to have no God, it is evident how very strong this impression of a Deity must be; since it is more difficult to obliterate it from the mind of man, than to break down the feelings of his nature,—these certainly being broken down, when, in opposition to his natural haughtiness, he spontaneously humbles himself before the meanest object as an act of reverence to God."

However, at 1:3:3 Calvin says...

"...the world...abours as much as it can to shake off all knowledge of God, and corrupts his worship in innumerable ways. I only say, that, when the stupid hardness of heart, which the wicked eagerly court as a means of despising God, becomes enfeebled, the sense of Deity, which of all things they wished most to be extinguished, is still in vigour, and now and then breaks forth".

[RBerman]

Apostoli, I'm not interested in whether the tools of "anthropologists and scientists" detect an awareness of God within aborigines. All that matters to me is that God's Word says that all men are without excuse because they suppress the knowledge of God in unrighteousness. You can't suppress (or in the words of Calvin, "shake off") something that doesn't exist. If Calvin teaches that "God has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead," I classify that under "spiritual awareness." How can you do otherwise? What other category would it fit under? This shouldn't be this hard.

[apostoli]

Hi Max,

I spent quite some time responding point by point to your last post, but as I was checking up on something, it occured to me we were in danger of going in circles. So, if you have no objections I'll defer posting it...

The topic I was checking up on was the Catholic view of Sanctification. I came across a paper (a catholic apology) titled "CATHOLIC TEACHING ON JUSTIFICATION AND SANCTIFICATION which was presented to The Midwest Baptist Conference Theological Workshop in 1996. I think if we use this as a foundation to a Q&A we might be able to put our distinct viewpoints forward more clearly and progress our conversation. For instance: concerning "predestination", Romans 8:29 gives a view that might provide a middle ground to the opinions we have each presented ("For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son").
http://www.cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a037.html

Imu, various Protestants groups view Sanctification as a one off event, whereas Catholics see it as a progression. Whilst we are Justified at Baptism, as we agree; imu, you suggest that we remain simul justus et peccator (simultaneously a sinner and righteous) - I would rephrase this as "though a sinner, God grants (merits) righteousness to us" (see below). In this respect, the more we strive towards righteousness, God grants (merits) more righteousness to us as a gift - as servants, striving to please our master this (the striving) is something we should be doing anyway (Lk 17:7-10), so we receive a congratulatory gift rather than a reward (An example I came across suggested it is like a soldier receiving a medal of valor, in as much as, there is no obligation on the part of the authorities to award it).

In our discussion, I've detected that your main objection/s is to the Catholic view of grace and merit and thus Justification. The abovementioned paper covers such better than I could ever hope to do. So, I encourage you to investigate its presentation on these subjects, and we could discuss (In our conversation, though I've made inadvertant errors, I've discovered I'm a better Catholic theologically than I had thought, so it has been a much appreciated learning experience for me :-).

Something I found interesting (and a correction to what I had advocated earlier concerning the word dikaioo) is the following statement: "the Protestant view of justification introduces this additional difficulty, that God who has sworn that he "will not justify the wicked" [Ex 23:7; Deut 25:1; 2 Chron 6:23] is now said to justify men while leaving them sinners..." The paper later argues "modern scientific exegesis unanimously acknowledges that the word [dikaioàn] can only mean: to declare officially just, someone who is so in reality". Imu, Protestants have advocated that those who are Justified by God are only deemed (declared) to be righteous, and are not caused to be righteous. This contrasts with the Catholic view that man is "caused to become righteous" by God through the activity of the Holy Spirit (cp Rom 5:19). Imu, in the Catholic view "righteousness" is accumulative as we progess towards full participation in the divine physis (cp 2 Peter 1:4).

I am very tempted to raise various points the abovementioned paper presents that have been raised in our discussion, but so as not to over-laden our discussion, I'll defer those to another time...

[RBerman]

Imu, various Protestants groups view Sanctification as a one off event, whereas Catholics see it as a progression.

That is not correct. Protestants see Sanctification as an ongoing process. For instance:

Larger Catechism

Q. 75. What is sanctification?

A. Sanctification is a work of God's grace, whereby they whom God hath, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be holy, are in time, through the powerful operation of his Spirit applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them, renewed in their whole man after the image of God; having the seeds of repentance unto life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts, and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened, as that they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life.

© source where applicable

The "chosen to be holy" bit is sometimes referred to as "definitive sanctification" as a one-time event, but the more common reference of sanctification is to "progressive sanctification," which is the "more and more" bit, over time.

[apostoli]

Hello RBerman,

Apostoli, I'm not interested in whether the tools of "anthropologists and scientists" detect an awareness of God within aborigines.

Which is just as well, as researchers have determined, as I stated, Australian aborigines had no concept of "god/gods" or "worship" proir to their encounter with Missionaries in the 19th and 20th century, let alone your "detect an awareness of God".

To me the above is just a curiousity worth looking at...

Personally, I am only interested in what scripture actually has to say (without addition or subtraction), and should we encounter a situation which seems to contradict a traditional interpretation of scripture (Catholic or Protestant), investigate whether it needs revision or clarification.

All that matters to me is that God's Word says that all men are without excuse because they suppress the knowledge of God in unrighteousness.

Nowhere does A.Paul assert "all men are without excuse" or "they suppress the knowledge of God in unrighteousness", thats pure eisegesis as you well know.

Romans 1:16-21 certainly does not support your ascertians. In fact, rather than saying "they suppress the knowledge of God", A.Paul at Romans 1:21 says "...when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations".

I'm sure you are aware that the Greek philosophers did not suppress knowledge of God. In Plato's day the idea of "o theos" was a very radical idea. He and later philosophers advocated it quite strongly, but in their imagination "o theos" was so above everything they determined he was unknowable, unapproachable and fully detached from creation - subjects A.Paul refutes in a few paragrahs (Rom 1:16-21) and concludes "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools".

You can't suppress (or in the words of Calvin, "shake off") something that doesn't exist.

In the case of the Australian aborigines there was nothing to "shake off", but as history attests, since white settlement they have been able to acquire knowledge of God.

From the viewpoint of scripture set in its historical contxt: given the Greeks (A.Paul's subject (see below)) never suppressed anything in regards to their speculations on "o theos" I'm not following your objection. A.Paul says they became vainglorious "in their imaginations...Professing themselves to be wise", which if you have ever investigated the philosophies, such is evident, each philosopher even accusing the other similarly when disputes arose.

If Calvin teaches that "God has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead," I classify that under "spiritual awareness."

Hmm, so Calvin's opinion is infallable in your opinion (?). I would really appreciate your definition of "spiritual awareness". If you mean having an awareness of the existence of God, then the Australian aborigine before white settlement has to be excluded. If you mean an awareness of earth bound "invisible beings", then the Australian aborigine before white settlement can be included.

How can you do otherwise? What other category would it fit under? This shouldn't be this hard.

There is no problem if we stick to scripture and avoid emotive eisegesis based on denominational presumptions.


Yesterday, as a consequence of our discussion, I was prompted to do a restudy of Romans 1:16-21 and read a couple of the older commentaries. A.Paul is restrictive in his application of what he says in these verses. At vs16 he declares "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. " The natural reading of the next few verses, is that A.Paul's context is the Greeks - which is evident if one considers that at least from the time of Plato there was a rationalisation that there must be a "sole mover" for all existence (which Plato designated "o theos").

Imo, A.Paul decomposes his topic and subject. Presumaby his target audience consisted of Jews and Gentiles, but in vs13 A.Paul says "I purposed to come unto you...that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles." In vs14 A.Paul makes a distinction between two groups of Gentile whom he designates as the Greeks and the Barbarians, so given A.Paul's progression "the Barbarians" are excluded in verses 16-21 as in vs16 he makes reference only to the Jews and Greeks in the context of salvation. The next verses are not directly applicable to the Jew, but as a contrast of the Jewish experience as opposed to Greek speculation. Given, the Greek philophies and histories were core to Roman education (even the illiterate would be aware of them in their legendary form) it would be obvious to A.Paul's audience the verses that follow vs16 are specific to the Greek experience (something we can even confirm from secular history).

____________________

The other day I was reading a legal advisory that discussed whether it was possible to reconcile the conciliation process applied in Aboriginal lore to the Westminster system of law generally applied in Australia (punishment and rehabilitation). That aside, the point the paper made was, that though there is diversity amoungst the tribal groups there was particular commonality in respect to "moral" law/lore. Interpretatively, and considering all societies with which I have some knowledge, at the least there appears to be a core set of moral rules that are universal throughout the world. Whether this can be considered "spiritual awareness" would depend on what definition one gives to "spiritual awareness".

[apostoli]

That is not correct. Protestants see Sanctification as an ongoing process. For instance:

Larger Catechism

Q. 75. What is sanctification?

A. Sanctification is a work of God's grace, whereby they whom God hath, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be holy, are in time, through the powerful operation of his Spirit applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them, renewed in their whole man after the image of God; having the seeds of repentance unto life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts, and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened, as that they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life.

© source where applicable

The "chosen to be holy" bit is sometimes referred to as "definitive sanctification" as a one-time event, but the more common reference of sanctification is to "progressive sanctification," which is the "more and more" bit, over time.

Thanks for that clarification. I said "various Protestant groups view Sanctification as a one off event" to contrast the Catholic view, though I was aware that there are "various Protestant groups view Sanctification as a progressive process". Trouble is/was, I'm not aware of which denomination/s holds what and what their detail might be...

[RBerman]

Thanks for that clarification. I said "various Protestant groups view Sanctification as a one off event" to contrast the Catholic view, though I was aware that there are "various Protestant groups view Sanctification as a progressive process". Trouble is/was, I'm not aware of which denomination/s holds what and what their detail might be...

OK. It sounded like you were trying to describe the predominant Protestant view. The predominant view is that of sanctification as a process.

Nowhere does A.Paul assert "all men are without excuse" or "they suppress the knowledge of God in unrighteousness", thats pure eisegesis as you well know. Romans 1:16-21 certainly does not support your ascertians. In fact, rather than saying "they suppress the knowledge of God", A.Paul at Romans 1:21 says "...when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations". I'm sure you are aware that the Greek philosophers did not suppress knowledge of God. In Plato's day the idea of "o theos" was a very radical idea. He and later philosophers advocated it quite strongly, but in their imagination "o theos" was so above everything they determined he was unknowable, unapproachable and fully detached from creation - subjects A.Paul refutes in a few paragrahs (Rom 1:16-21) and concludes "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools"...There is no problem if we stick to scripture and avoid emotive eisegesis based on denominational presumptions.

Sorry, I'm not going to let you claim the high ground of "I stick to Scripture, and you do eisegesis." We're both offering interpretation of Scripture. Romans 1:18 says they "by their unrighteousness suppress the truth." That was the verse to which I was alluding when I said, "They suppress the knowledge of God in unrighteousness."

Hmm, so Calvin's opinion is infallable in your opinion (?).

Sir, this conversation got rolling when you falsely attributed certain views to Calvin. The focus of our discussion has been to see what Calvin really believed and taught. I did not say that Calvin was infallible, because I do not believe that to be the case. But if you're going to criticize Calvin, at least criticize him for what he actually taught. As with the "Protestant view of sanctification" issue, it would appear that you ought to study more before speaking.

I would really appreciate your definition of "spiritual awareness". If you mean having an awareness of the existence of God, then the Australian aborigine before white settlement has to be excluded. If you mean an awareness of earth bound "invisible beings", then the Australian aborigine before white settlement can be included... The other day I was reading a legal advisory that discussed whether it was possible to reconcile the conciliation process applied in Aboriginal lore to the Westminster system of law generally applied in Australia (punishment and rehabilitation). That aside, the point the paper made was, that though there is diversity amoungst the tribal groups there was particular commonality in respect to "moral" law/lore. Interpretatively, and considering all societies with which I have some knowledge, at the least there appears to be a core set of moral rules that are universal throughout the world. Whether this can be considered "spiritual awareness" would depend on what definition one gives to "spiritual awareness".

That is correct. "awareness of the existence of God" doesn't have to include correct understanding about the nature of God. It could include all manner of error, such as the sorts of errors the aborigines doubtless held. I am using "spiritual awareness" in a broad sense.

Yesterday, as a consequence of our discussion, I was prompted to do a restudy of Romans 1:16-21 and read a couple of the older commentaries. A.Paul is restrictive in his application of what he says in these verses. At vs16 he declares "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. " The natural reading of the next few verses, is that A.Paul's context is the Greeks - which is evident if one considers that at least from the time of Plato there was a rationalisation that there must be a "sole mover" for all existence (which Plato designated "o theos").

Imo, A.Paul decomposes his topic and subject. Presumaby his target audience consisted of Jews and Gentiles, but in vs13 A.Paul says "I purposed to come unto you...that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles." In vs14 A.Paul makes a distinction between two groups of Gentile whom he designates as the Greeks and the Barbarians, so given A.Paul's progression "the Barbarians" are excluded in verses 16-21 as in vs16 he makes reference only to the Jews and Greeks in the context of salvation. The next verses are not directly applicable to the Jew, but as a contrast of the Jewish experience as opposed to Greek speculation. Given, the Greek philophies and histories were core to Roman education (even the illiterate would be aware of them in their legendary form) it would be obvious to A.Paul's audience the verses that follow vs16 are specific to the Greek experience (something we can even confirm from secular history).

Certainly the Greeks were an example of the sort of thing Paul speaks about. But for a Jew, "Jew and Greek" meant "Jew and non-Jew" and thus "everybody." When Paul says that the gospel is "the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Romans 1:16) surely he's not excluding Germans and Parthians and the rest!

[apostoli]

Certainly the Greeks were an example of the sort of thing Paul speaks about.

As the Roman model of the time was based on the Greek model, the Greek model was not an example but what Rome esteemed to be! Which underlines A.Paul's testimony of the defects of the Greek system (where Roman society would ultimately head, was heading, and should be avoided).

But for a Jew, "Jew and Greek" meant "Jew and non-Jew" and thus "everybody."

Not true! Jerusalem Jews would consider Hellenised Jews as non-Jews (as is evidenced from secular history). In all probability there was a mix in Rome, though I would suggest the dominate Jewish group were Hellinised Jews. Possibly why A.Paul refered to other gentiles at Rom 1:13.

When Paul says that the gospel is "the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Romans 1:16) surely he's not excluding Germans and Parthians and the rest!

Sure was! Hence Romans 1:13 distinction between Greeks and Barbarians. Of course he isn't excluding the Barbarians from salvation, but that is not his topic to the Roman = Jews and Greeks. A simple knowledge of ancient history demonstrates that Roman history is simply an extension of Greek history. What we now call Italy originated as Greek colonisation.

An irritant I find with many apologists (Catholic and Protestant) is they refuse to read scripture in its historical context and prefer to prattle on about speculative and unproven dogmatics.
______________

Sure, you can accuse me of taking the high ground. But I doubt that anyone reading these posts honestly can accuse me of misquoting Calvin (I've quoted him often enough) or adding or subtracting from scripture (I quote it often enough, and attempt to put it in its historical context, avoiding dogmatic interpretation). I'd appreciate it, if you would frame your responses with direct quotes from Calvin and scripture without adding or subtracting from either - opinion is cheap, proof is tangible!

[RBerman]

Jerusalem Jews would consider Hellenised Jews as non-Jews (as is evidenced from secular history). In all probability there was a mix in Rome, though I would suggest the dominate Jewish group were Hellinised Jews. Possibly why A.Paul refered to other gentiles at Rom 1:13... Hence Romans 1:13 distinction between Greeks and Barbarians. Of course he isn't excluding the Barbarians from salvation, but that is not his topic to the Roman = Jews and Greeks. A simple knowledge of ancient history demonstrates that Roman history is simply an extension of Greek history. What we now call Italy originated as Greek colonisation.

Certainly Greek and Roman history are intertwined, as one might expect of two adjacent penninsulas. For that matter, "barbarians" interacted regularly with both Greeks and Jews, again due to their proximity. Paul's critique of animal worship fits barbarians at least as well as Romans.

An irritant I find with many apologists (Catholic and Protestant) is they refuse to read scripture in its historical context and prefer to prattle on about speculative and unproven dogmatics.

That is a problem, yes. Do you yourself immune to this failing?

Sure, you can accuse me of taking the high ground. But I doubt that anyone reading these posts honestly can accuse me of misquoting Calvin (I've quoted him often enough) or adding or subtracting from scripture (I quote it often enough, and attempt to put it in its historical context, avoiding dogmatic interpretation). I'd appreciate it, if you would frame your responses with direct quotes from Calvin and scripture without adding or subtracting from either - opinion is cheap, proof is tangible!

Let's review. Back in post #92, you claimed that, "Because of their ideas on man being radically depraved after the fall and their ideas on predestination, both Luther and Calvin denied that "everybody has a spiritual longing". Thus, imu, they held that any "spiritual longing" a man has is through the direct intervention of God." Now, it's true that Calvin and Luther taught that no one desires to submit to God unless God has already changed that man's heart. But a "spiritual longing" is a much more general concept that would include idolatry, false religions, worship of ancestral spirits, etc. So I showed a whole chapter of Calvin's Institutes devoted to the proposition that all men have innate awareness of God. You then cited an aboriginal tribe whose spirituality was expressed through ancestor worship. Two things about that:

1) The beliefs of aborigines are not germane to whether Calvin taught or did not teach some particular thing.
2) The ancestor-worship you attribute to those aborigines fits within Calvin's teaching as an example of how men warp their spirituality away from the true God.

[Maxentius]

Imu, various Protestants groups view Sanctification as a one off event, whereas Catholics see it as a progression.

This may be true of "various protestant groups", but I have never been told that sanctification is a one off event--at least as I understand the term.

Whilst we are Justified at Baptism, as we agree; imu, you suggest that we remain simul justus et peccator (simultaneously a sinner and righteous) - I would rephrase this as "though a sinner, God grants (merits) righteousness to us" (see below). In this respect, the more we strive towards righteousness, God grants (merits) more righteousness to us as a gift - as servants, striving to please our master this (the striving) is something we should be doing anyway (Lk 17:7-10), so we receive a congratulatory gift rather than a reward (An example I came across suggested it is like a soldier receiving a medal of valor, in as much as, there is no obligation on the part of the authorities to award it).

If I recall correctly, this is how I described RC soteriology. The issue remais, though, that we do not accept that we merit anything.

Something I found interesting (and a correction to what I had advocated earlier concerning the word dikaioo) is the following statement: "the Protestant view of justification introduces this additional difficulty, that God who has sworn that he "will not justify the wicked" [Ex 23:7; Deut 25:1; 2 Chron 6:23] is now said to justify men while leaving them sinners..." The paper later argues "modern scientific exegesis unanimously acknowledges that the word [dikaioàn] can only mean: to declare officially just, someone who is so in reality". Imu, Protestants have advocated that those who are Justified by God are only deemed (declared) to be righteous, and are not caused to be righteous. This contrasts with the Catholic view that man is "caused to become righteous" by God through the activity of the Holy Spirit (cp Rom 5:19). Imu, in the Catholic view "righteousness" is accumulative as we progess towards full participation in the divine physis (cp 2 Peter 1:4).

Interesting how "modern scientific exegesis" just happens to agree with the position expounded by the Mr. Palm. I happen to believe the best scholarship agrees with me, YMMV.

But to the point--the citations, the Exodus 23:7 has more to do with civil penalties for helping evil than the standing of the sinner before a righteous God. Ditto Deu 25:1 and 2 Chron 6:23. This is, it seems to me, rather clear from the context. As St. Paul said--the magistrate does not bear the sword in vain, though the one being executed may well be in Christ and have his sins forgiven. Now I could make a similar critique of the RC position--we are "actually righteous." We are not. If we sin we are by definition unrighteous. And within the RC system outlined, we would have to perform meritorious works to receive more grace so we become "actually righteous" again. The problem is that this is a works gospel, even if theoretically the desire to do so originates with God's grace. God gives us a little grace--or he preserves just enough--and we "work out our own salvation." Now, I actually agree we work out our own salvation, but like St. Paul, I believe it is God who works in us both to will and to do--i.e. I see a reference to the new man here and not to our own striving for justification. This has been the issue since we began our discussion.

Regarding merit etc. This is actually an outgrowth of the RC theological interaction with the protestant Reformation. The merit system allows the RCC to avoid the charge of Pelagianism while demanding we perform works to gain our justification. The protestant Reformation says our works cannot merit anything.

[apostoli]

Hello RBerman,

Certainly Greek and Roman history are intertwined, as one might expect of two adjacent penninsulas. For that matter, "barbarians" interacted regularly with both Greeks and Jews, again due to their proximity. Paul's critique of animal worship fits barbarians at least as well as Romans.

But the Barbarians aren't in A.Paul's focus = Jews & Greeks. There is a lot in the NT that can at a pastoral level be extended to ourselves or anyone else. For instance: the problems in the Corinthian eclesia, but at the time of writing "we" were not A.Paul's focus.

An irritant I find with many apologists (Catholic and Protestant) is they refuse to read scripture in its historical context and prefer to prattle on about speculative and unproven dogmatics.

That is a problem, yes. Do you yourself immune to this failing?

We all have human failings. I strive to understand scripture on its own terms, and in dogmatics (pastoral applications) extend its meaning to modern life. Whether I'm a 100% successful is up to my correspondents to judge and correct me should I inadvertantly fail.

I'm probably not a very good traditional "catholic" from a Protestant viewpoint as I have and do question various traditions of the church that I perceive as straying from scripture, but that is something my RCC education instilled in me - possibly this was a result of Vatican I & II, all I know is my parents were what one might call "rote" Christians.

Let's review. Back in post #92, you claimed that, "Because of their ideas on man being radically depraved after the fall and their ideas on predestination, both Luther and Calvin denied that "everybody has a spiritual longing". Thus, imu, they held that any "spiritual longing" a man has is through the direct intervention of God." Now, it's true that Calvin and Luther taught that no one desires to submit to God unless God has already changed that man's heart. But a "spiritual longing" is a much more general concept that would include idolatry, false religions, worship of ancestral spirits, etc. So I showed a whole chapter of Calvin's Institutes devoted to the proposition that all men have innate awareness of God. You then cited an aboriginal tribe whose spirituality was expressed through ancestor worship.

1. I didn't reference a "tribe", but a whole continent of people which consists of 400 major language groups (often refered to as nations) which had been seperated from the rest of the world since before civilisation arose in the rest of the world. Several hundreds of thousand people before white settlement in Australia. All of whom, as I have constantly repeated, accademics have demonstrated had no concept of god/gods or worship before their encounters with missionaries in the 19th & 20th century. And as I plainly stated earlier, they do not worship their ancestors, did not erect idols or have anything in their "Dreamtime" teaching that approaches idolatary!

2. In posts subsequent to #92, rather than interpret Calvin, I quoted him directly with references (the book, chapter and paragraph/s in the Institutes). See post #108. In various posts I remarked that Luther & Calvin viewed man's soul as totally depraved but allowed that man remained a "rational animal" (cerebral). As generally "spirituality" is regarded as an aspect of the soul, I'd argue that Luther & Calvin would not allow the concept of "spiritual awareness" without the direct intervention of God. In fact, imu, Calvin limited man's "sense of Deity" to an intellectual perception (instilled in man by God), though he speculated that "a sense of Deity is inscribed on every heart" (also instilled in man by God). I'll requote the cites I gave in post #108...

Calvin suggested at the beginning of 1:3:1...

"there exists in the human minds and indeed by natural instinct, some sense of Deity, we hold to be beyond dispute, since God himself, to prevent any man from pretending ignorance, has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead"

At the end of 1:3:1 Calvin concludes...

"Since, then, there never has been, from the very first, any quarter of the globe, any city, any household even, without religion, this amounts to a tacit confession, that a sense of Deity is inscribed on every heart. Nay, even idolatry is ample evidence of this fact. For we know how reluctant man is to lower himself, in order to set other creatures above him. Therefore, when he chooses to worship wood and stone rather than be thought to have no God, it is evident how very strong this impression of a Deity must be; since it is more difficult to obliterate it from the mind of man, than to break down the feelings of his nature,—these certainly being broken down, when, in opposition to his natural haughtiness, he spontaneously humbles himself before the meanest object as an act of reverence to God."

However, at 1:3:3 Calvin says...

"...the world...abours as much as it can to shake off all knowledge of God, and corrupts his worship in innumerable ways. I only say, that, when the stupid hardness of heart, which the wicked eagerly court as a means of despising God, becomes enfeebled, the sense of Deity, which of all things they wished most to be extinguished, is still in vigour, and now and then breaks forth".

Two things about that:

1) The beliefs of aborigines are not germane to whether Calvin taught or did not teach some particular thing.
2) The ancestor-worship you attribute to those aborigines fits within Calvin's teaching as an example of how men warp their spirituality away from the true God.

2. I never attributed ancestor-worship to the Australia aborigine, thats an idea you have had to insert rather than read the negation that I actually wrote (see post #103). The fact is, as we discussed Calvin's remarks concerning the origin of idolatary, I stated that the Australia aborigine did not / does not engage in ancestor-worship, and as I've previously stated have never practiced idolatary or worship in any form. It is true they have some unusual superstitions that enforce respect for everything in their environment, but none of these involve idolatary or worship.

1. The "Dreamtime" teaching and social conscious of Australian aborigines are germane to what Calvin taught as they challenge his Eurocentric perspective. Calvin, though later reasoning against it, stated: "Certainly, if there is any quarter where it may be supposed that God is unknown, the most likely for such an instance to exist is among the dullest tribes farthest removed from civilisation". (Institutes 1:3:1) It just so happens that around a hundred years after Calvin's death Dutch traders blown off course on their way to the Spice Islands encountered such a people on a previously unknown continent, and their description of these people was very disparaging.

[Maxentius]

Apostoli,

"A sense of Deity" and the other citation by you from Calvin are consistent with what RBerman has been saying. "A sense of Deity" doe not mean one knows who God is, just that there is something higher than men and that there are some ethical requirements from him. This is entirely consistent with St. Paul's letter to the Romans chapter 1. This means that we cannot plead ignorance of God's righteousness, and hence we all are under sin. This fits better, I think, with the magisterial Reformation view of man than the RC view.

The Jew/Greek passages are, in context, meant to refer to the whole human race. This seems pretty clear from the passages themselves. Indeed, one would have to assume St. Paul meant to exclude Romans and Gauls, Teutons and Thracians, Sarmatians and Celtiberi etc. otherwise.

[RBerman]

But the Barbarians aren't in A.Paul's focus = Jews & Greeks. There is a lot in the NT that can at a pastoral level be extended to ourselves or anyone else. For instance: the problems in the Corinthian eclesia, but at the time of writing "we" were not A.Paul's focus.

They're not the focus, but we've already agreed that Paul's comments in verse 16 are extrapolatable to include salvation for barbarians, even so.

I'm probably not a very good traditional "catholic" from a Protestant viewpoint as I have and do question various traditions of the church that I perceive as straying from scripture, but that is something my RCC education instilled in me

Nothing wrong with that; I scrutinize my tradition as well.

1. I didn't reference a "tribe", but a whole continent of people which consists of 400 major language groups (often refered to as nations) which had been seperated from the rest of the world since before civilisation arose in the rest of the world. Several hundreds of thousand people before white settlement in Australia. All of whom, as I have constantly repeated, accademics have demonstrated had no concept of god/gods or worship before their encounters with missionaries in the 19th & 20th century. And as I plainly stated earlier, they do not worship their ancestors, did not erect idols or have anything in their "Dreamtime" teaching that approaches idolatary!

Do they believe in some sort of spirits?

2. In posts subsequent to #92, rather than interpret Calvin, I quoted him directly with references (the book, chapter and paragraph/s in the Institutes). See post #108. In various posts I remarked that Luther & Calvin viewed man's soul as totally depraved but allowed that man remained a "rational animal" (cerebral). As generally "spirituality" is regarded as an aspect of the soul, I'd argue that Luther & Calvin would not allow the concept of "spiritual awareness" without the direct intervention of God. In fact, imu, Calvin limited man's "sense of Deity" to an intellectual perception (instilled in man by God), though he speculated that "a sense of Deity is inscribed on every heart" (also instilled in man by God). I'll requote the cites I gave in post #108...

Calvin suggested at the beginning of 1:3:1...

"there exists in the human minds and indeed by natural instinct, some sense of Deity, we hold to be beyond dispute, since God himself, to prevent any man from pretending ignorance, has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead"

At the end of 1:3:1 Calvin concludes...

"Since, then, there never has been, from the very first, any quarter of the globe, any city, any household even, without religion, this amounts to a tacit confession, that a sense of Deity is inscribed on every heart. Nay, even idolatry is ample evidence of this fact. For we know how reluctant man is to lower himself, in order to set other creatures above him. Therefore, when he chooses to worship wood and stone rather than be thought to have no God, it is evident how very strong this impression of a Deity must be; since it is more difficult to obliterate it from the mind of man, than to break down the feelings of his nature,—these certainly being broken down, when, in opposition to his natural haughtiness, he spontaneously humbles himself before the meanest object as an act of reverence to God."

However, at 1:3:3 Calvin says...

"...the world...abours as much as it can to shake off all knowledge of God, and corrupts his worship in innumerable ways. I only say, that, when the stupid hardness of heart, which the wicked eagerly court as a means of despising God, becomes enfeebled, the sense of Deity, which of all things they wished most to be extinguished, is still in vigour, and now and then breaks forth".

All of those quotations show that Calvin ascribed to men a spiritual awareness, in the form of a knowledge of God which they attempt to shake off in the hardness of their hearts. You may argue that Calvin is wrong that all men have such spiritual awareness. But I don't see how you can read that and think that Calvin denies that all men have a spiritual awareness.