Originally posted by George Blaisdell

So it is basically a revolt against Rome's merit system???

Lord have mercy!

None the less, if the Lutherans are right, the RCC anathematized the Gospel.

I mean, it is silly to suppose that fallen man merits God's grace...
Yet to say that personal effort has nothing to do with salvation is equally silly...

We say it does not earn salvation, grace, or anything else. God is not a debtor. Also, we are unprofitable servants, as Christ himself said.

Works do have something to do with salvation though, as you point out below.

Yet we are rewarded based upon our willful choices, and if we are willing to do the will of God, we will ATTAIN unto the Grace of God... We will attract that Grace... Just as it is also true that if we choose to DO the works of SIN, we will repel what Grace we had...

If you attract grace by your works, then your works earn grace--which means it is no longer grace... If you are rewarded with salvation for your works, salvation is no longer of grace....

But this strident proclamation of FAITH ALONE!!! is equally silly, because there is no faith without works, and works perfect faith [James]

Arsenios

The issue is "earning" or, as you say, "attracting" or "attaining" grace. Both make our works meritorious, IMO, which is contrary to the deposit of faith, where we do not have any merit except that of Christ, and where faith is accounted to us as righteousness.

Arsenios:

"it is silly to suppose that fallen man merits God's grace"

"we are rewarded based upon our willful choices" ( in which) "we will attract" the Grace of God.

These are contradictory statements.

Originally posted by Anoetos

Arsenios:

"it is silly to suppose that fallen man merits God's grace"

"we are rewarded based upon our willful choices" ( in which) "we will attract" the Grace of God.

These are contradictory statements.

If you sincerely think that they are indeed contradictory, then you do NOT know salvation...

Salvation IS the PARTICIPATION by man IN GOD... [In the Old Testament, this participation was from without, and in the New Testament, from within]... This is why there is no way that ANY fallen and sinful creature, can EVER merit salvation...

Yet if you think that God allows sin to participate in Him, you simply have another really big think coming... This is why the perfection [perfecting] of the Saints..is so important... Why we are called to the WORKS OF REPENTANCE in which this perfection is brought about...

The simple fact which rebuts your rejection of works unto salvation is the fact that NOT ALL ARE SAVED... So that IF salvation is ONLY BY THE WORKS OF GOD, and if human choices and actions have nothing to do with anything relat5ing to salvation, and if God is really GOD, then you can ONLY BLAME GOD for your sin and for your NOT BEING SAVED... And man is utterly and completely unaccountable, and God is but playing divine one handed solitaire in heaven...

And THAT THING is NOT the Loving and Holy God Whom I know and love...

Arsenios

Originally posted by Maxentius

None the less, if the Lutherans are right, [about the merit system of Rome] the RCC anathematized the Gospel.

The error of Rome here is understandable, given the necessity of works unto salvation, and is easily repentable -

The DENIAL OF THE NEED FOR WORKS UNTO SALVATION, which you are embracing, is far more eggregious in its consequences, visible all around us... eg The wholesale falling away from the Faith... And the rise of the secular domination of the western Christians...

We say it does not earn salvation, grace, or anything else. God is not a debtor. Also, we are unprofitable servants, as Christ himself said.

Of COURSE we are unprofitable servants... Yet this does NOT mean we are to scorn the need for works unto salvation, for we are to repent from evil, or throw away our souls... Yet repentance ONLY says NO to sinful impulses [passions]... It does not, and can not, cause or earn salvation... That is a GIFT of God for those who amend their lives and turn from their evil ways and obey the commandments of Christ...

Works do have something to do with salvation though, as you point out below.

Indeed...

If you attract grace by your works, then your works earn grace--which means it is no longer grace... If you are rewarded with salvation for your works, salvation is no longer of grace...

.

This is only true in the neo-scholastic and western phronema that understands these matters according to their fallen logical insistences... It is not true in fact, nor in Christ... The experience of the undivided Christian Church of the first thousand years, and the continuing experience of the Orthodox Church for the last thousand, denies that repentance earns grace... It does not...

If you do not understand salvation, you will insist that our understanding of repentance does indeed mean that it earns grace... Salvation is understood experientially by the Saints of the Body of Christ, by those who by their works have RUN THE RACE UNTO PERFECTION IN CHRIST... And not even one of these reports that their repentance EARNED them their salvation... And this because they KNOW by EXPERIENCE that these two, repentance and salvation, are totally different things, the one involving creation, and the other the Creator...

The issue is "earning" or, as you say, "attracting" or "attaining" grace. Both make our works meritorious, IMO, which is contrary to the deposit of faith, where we do not have any merit except that of Christ, and where faith is accounted to us as righteousness.

Paul prayed with his disciples in trembling... This att5racted, and did not earn, the Grace of God... He beat himself with blows black and blue, and not as merely striking the air as a shadow-boxer, and this did not earn him anything... All it did was prevent him from becoming unapproved by Christ...

God is faithful, and IF we turn from sin, and call upon his Holy Name, He WILL respond to us, not because we have worked for and earned His Grace, but because HE DESIRES WITH DESIRE NOT THE DESTRUCTION OF SINNERS, BUT THAT HE SHOULD COME TO KNOW THE TRUTH AND LIVE...

It was through the WILL OF MAN that man fell in the Garden... And it is through the WILL OF MAN that God requires man to turn from sin and call upon the nAME OF THE LORD...

Arsenios

Originally posted by George Blaisdell

If you sincerely think that they are indeed contradictory, then you do NOT know salvation...

Salvation IS the PARTICIPATION by man IN GOD... [In the Old Testament, this participation was from without, and in the New Testament, from within]... This is why there is no way that ANY fallen and sinful creature, can EVER merit salvation...

Yet if you think that God allows sin to participate in Him, you simply have another really big think coming... This is why the perfection [perfecting] of the Saints..is so important... Why we are called to the WORKS OF REPENTANCE in which this perfection is brought about...

The simple fact which rebuts your rejection of works unto salvation is the fact that NOT ALL ARE SAVED... So that IF salvation is ONLY BY THE WORKS OF GOD, and if human choices and actions have nothing to do with anything relat5ing to salvation, and if God is really GOD, then you can ONLY BLAME GOD for your sin and for your NOT BEING SAVED... And man is utterly and completely unaccountable, and God is but playing divine one handed solitaire in heaven...

And THAT THING is NOT the Loving and Holy God Whom I know and love...

Arsenios

This is why Christianity and most religions are made up nonsense.

You can say whatever you want without regard for coherency or even common sense and be regarded as an orthodox believer.

And with that I am leaving this forum...no need to reprimand me, Mods...I'm done with this nonsense.

Originally posted by Anoetos

This is why Christianity and most religions are made up nonsense.

You can say whatever you want without regard for coherency or even common sense and be regarded as an orthodox believer.

The fruits of Protestantism. I wish I could say I'm surprised at your new position, but sadly I'm not.

Lord have mercy.

Originally posted by Maxentius

We consider ourselves the true inheritors of the Apostolic deposit of faith.

Fair enough. But even if this were true, this doesn't mean that you're not schismatic.

Schism simply means "division". Thus, to answer the question: "who are the schismatics?", one simply needs to answer the question "who divided/split from whom?"

And in answer to this question, I don't think it could be reasonably argued that it was the Roman Catholics (who were there prior to the schism) who divided from the Lutherans (which was the newly-formed group as the result of the schism). That would be like saying that Britain split from the US at the War of Independence, which of course is not true. From a purely historical POV, it must be considered that it was the US who split from Britain - just as it must be considered that Lutherans who split from the Roman Catholics. Thus, it is Lutherans who are the schismatics. This is simply what "schismatic" means, and how the word is used to describe the historical origin of the Lutheran denomination (and of course, "denomination" is just another word for "division" - ie, "schism").

Of course, you may argue (as you obviously do) that your division from the RCC was justified on account of that group's corruption of the pure teaching of the Faith. However, arguing that your schism is justified is not the same as arguing that you're not schismatic.

Originally posted by Maxentius

If you attract grace by your works, then your works earn grace--which means it is no longer grace... If you are rewarded with salvation for your works, salvation is no longer of grace....

This is not strictly true.

If I have a volunteer doing some work for me, and I decide to reward them for their hard work with a gift, then it is a gift (ie, grace). He has attracted grace from by his works for me. And yet, because I was not obliged to give him the gift, and because the value of the gift is not necessarily in proportion to the work done, it wouldn't really be valid to think of it as being "earned".

The key element here that makes it is a gift is the lack of obligation: God is not obliged to give us salvation, or indeed anything, in return for our works. When we do works we are not doing anything other than what we are actually supposed to be doing. So whatever He does decide to give us (whether in response to our works or not) is a gift - ie, grace.

Originally posted by furay

The fruits of Protestantism. I wish I could say I'm surprised at your new position, but sadly I'm not.

Lord have mercy.

People who argue like this really need a new shtick. This is so old and lame, contains no information other than "my team is right". But if that is how you want to prop up your beliefs, I cannot and will not stop you.

Welcome back Jezz!

Originally posted by Jezz

Fair enough. But even if this were true, this doesn't mean that you're not schismatic.

Schism simply means "division". Thus, to answer the question: "who are the schismatics?", one simply needs to answer the question "who divided/split from whom?"

Except that "schism" and "schismatic" is not used in such a prosaic sense. It is used, in ecclesial discussions, to label one side as wrong. No one thinks he is the schismatic. (Was Maximos a proto schismatic?) So, given that, one can say the RCC is schismatic.

Originally posted by Jezz

This is not strictly true.

If I have a volunteer doing some work for me, and I decide to reward them for their hard work with a gift, then it is a gift (ie, grace). He has attracted grace from by his works for me. And yet, because I was not obliged to give him the gift, and because the value of the gift is not necessarily in proportion to the work done, it wouldn't really be valid to think of it as being "earned".

The key element here that makes it is a gift is the lack of obligation: God is not obliged to give us salvation, or indeed anything, in return for our works. When we do works we are not doing anything other than what we are actually supposed to be doing. So whatever He does decide to give us (whether in response to our works or not) is a gift - ie, grace.

Except, once again, the word is used differently from "gift" in the prosaic sense. "Grace" is not simply a gift, like a trinket, but is the source of salvation when we "attract" more of it from God, correct? If we thereofre attract "more" salvation, or theosis, or spiritual virtues, or what ever, then in important ways we earn our salvation--though not in a crass Pelagian sense.

Now, perhaps George meant that if we do good works God will give us little gifts apart from salvation. If that is so than I admit I have misread him. If it is not, then simply equating "grace" and "gift" does not do justice to how the term is used in these discussions.

Originally posted by George Blaisdell

The error of Rome here is understandable, given the necessity of works unto salvation, and is easily repentable -

The DENIAL OF THE NEED FOR WORKS UNTO SALVATION, which you are embracing, is far more eggregious in its consequences, visible all around us... eg The wholesale falling away from the Faith... And the rise of the secular domination of the western Christians...

George, you need to take this back. In my earlier citation of the Augsburg confession we see:

Augbsurg Confession

Article VI: Of New Obedience.

Also they teach that this faith is bound to bring forth good fruits, and that it is necessary to do good works commanded by God, because of God's will, but that we should not rely on those works to merit justification before God. For remission of sins and justification is apprehended by faith, as also the voice of Christ attests: When ye shall have done all these things, say: We are unprofitable servants. Luke 17:10. The same is also taught by 3] the Fathers. For Ambrose says: It is ordained of God that he who believes in Christ is saved, freely receiving remission of sins, without works, by faith alone.

---

© source where applicable

"..it is necessary to do good works.."

Good works are necessary but not meritorious.

I also bolded the important part. It makes no sense to discuss this with you if you are going to make claims like this which posts in this very thread refute.

This seems like an odd discussion to me. Schism, i.e. separation is a relational term. The people or entities are separated. You can't have one group in schism. Maybe one was more at fault, but trying to decide which one can be about as hard to trying to make just one person at fault in interpersonal squabbles. Sometimes it's true, but more typically there's enough blame to go around.

Significant portions of the Catholic Church had taken a wrong turn. Luther made a pastoral judgement that the sales of indulgences were harming people sufficiently that he couldn't overlook them. One can argue, but it was a judgement in good faith. There were good people on both sides who were interested in reconciliation. There were problems on both sides making it happen. A better pope would probably have taken a different approach.

Saying that the Catholic Church "excommunicated the Gospel" is a loaded term, which I'd prefer to avoid. But I think it is fair to say that the Pope decided it was better to kill the dissenters than to use a little Christian humility. Reconciliation with Luther might have been impossible, but not necessarily with his Frederick.

There's precedent. Nicea condemned Arius, but was broad enough that moderates on both sides could accept the results. I think Chalcedon was similar, although the situation there was more complex. Had the pope wanted to do so, he could certainly have supported such an approach in the 16th Cent. That he did not suggests that you can't blame the schism entirely on Protestants.

[quote=Arsenios]The DENIAL OF THE NEED FOR WORKS UNTO SALVATION, which you are embracing, is far more eggregious in its consequences, visible all around us..

Originally posted by Maxentius

George, you need to take this back. In my earlier citation of the Augsburg confession we see:

Augbsurg Confession

Article VI: Of New Obedience.

Also they teach that this faith is bound to bring forth good fruits, and that it is necessary to do good works commanded by God, because of God's will, but that we should not rely on those works to merit justification before God. For remission of sins and justification is apprehended by faith, as also the voice of Christ attests: When ye shall have done all these things, say: We are unprofitable servants. Luke 17:10. The same is also taught by 3] the Fathers. For Ambrose says: It is ordained of God that he who believes in Christ is saved, freely receiving remission of sins, without works, by faith alone.

---

© source where applicable

"..it is necessary to do good works.."

Good works are necessary but not meritorious.

I also bolded the important part. It makes no sense to discuss this with you if you are going to make claims like this which posts in this very thread refute.

This confession clearly DENIES THE NEED FOR WORKS UNTO SALVATION

It requires works, no question, but NOT UNTO SALVATION... Instead, it requires works as a CONSEQUENCE of Faith, and regards the Faith ONLY as UNTO SALVATION...

You see, the Orthodox do not divide works and Faith, nor does James, and clearly there is nothing in this quote of yours to indicate that WORKS PERFECT ONE'S FAITH...

I mean, is there ANYWHERE in your confession that agrees with the Bible in the Book of James where he plainly tells us that works perfect faith, and without works, one's faith is dead - eg has NO salvation??

Arsenios

Originally posted by Maxentius

this was in response to the typical wordplay and posturing here. My remarks to RCN were to show that his perspective on "the" Church is not the only one. By anathematizing the Gospel, Rome became schismatic.

Back at it again, eh, Max? I never said the RCC's view of the Church was the only one. Obviously it isn't, or we wouldn't be having these conversations.