Follow
When Jason Stellman converted to Roman Catholicism, one of the bible verses that convinced him was Matthew 12:36-37,
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Stellman believes that this text supports a future justification based on works, and was persuaded that he could no longer read it through a Protestant lens. So in his words, he switched glasses, started reading it through a Roman Catholic lens, and concluded that there will be a future justification based on works. But a closer reading of Matthew 12, as we shall see, reveals that he missed something very important. Jesus actually gave two examples of what He was talking about, and it is not what Stellman thinks.
We think it is better to read this chapter through the lens of the Jealousy Narrative, as we have noted elsewhere on this blog. When we read it through that lens, it becomes much clearer. God promised in Deuteronomy 32:21-22 that because the Jews had made Him jealous with their idolatry—”with that which is not God”—He would make them jealous “with those which are not a people.” As Paul revealed in Romans 11:11-14, the Gentiles are that people by which God makes the Jews jealous.
We see the Jealousy Narrative unfold early in the Gospel of Matthew. Recall that John the Baptist was the herald of the Messiah, announcing the arrival of Kingdom of God (Matthew 3:1-17). Later, when Jesus heard that John had been imprisoned—a pretty formal rejection of the Kingdom of God by the Jews—Jesus immediately departed and went to “Galilee of the Gentiles” (Matthew 4:12-17). It is common, as we shall see, for Jesus to turn to the Gentiles when He and His Kingdom are rejected by His own.
We can see the Jealousy Narrative again in Matthew 12. Jesus and His disciples picked corn on the Sabbath, and the Pharisees criticized them for it (v. 2). Then He went into their synagogue, and the Pharisees questioned whether He ought to be healing on the Sabbath (v. 10). After He healed a man, “the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him” (v. 14).
What happened next was simply a continuation of the Jealousy Narrative. When Jesus knew their thoughts, “he withdrew himself from thence” and turned His attention to the Gentiles “and healed them” that it might be fulfilled,
I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. … And in his name shall the Gentiles trust. (vv. 18-21)
Then, when He healed a blind, dumb, demon-possessed man, the people were astonished and understood that the Kingdom of God had come: “Is not this the son of David?” (v. 23). But the Pharisees criticized Him further, saying “This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils” (v. 24). Jesus explained, rather, “I cast out devils by the Spirit of God” and “the kingdom of God is come unto you” (v. 28).
The contrast is strikingly clear: Jesus had come by the Spirit of God, preaching the Kingdom of God, and the Jews rejected Him. Jesus then turned to the Gentiles with “My Spirit upon Him,” preaching the Kingdom of God, and the Gentiles believed in Him.
It is in this context that Jesus introduces “justification by words.” He begins by saying,
All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. … A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. (vv. 31-32, 35-37)
What have we before us but a contrast between Gentile belief, and Jewish unbelief? The Gentiles expressed their belief with their words: “Is this not the son of David?” (v. 23). The Pharisees expressed their unbelief with their words: “This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils” (v. 24).
As Jesus explains in this context, the Gentiles expressed their belief from the goodness of their regenerated hearts, while the Pharisees expressed their unbelief from the hardness of their evil, unregenerate hearts. It is by words that their belief or unbelief is expressed: “O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” (v. 34). In this context, Jesus says we will be justified by our words “in the day of judgment” (v. 36). This, Stellman thinks, is a reference to a future justification by works.
But Jesus then gives two examples of what this will look like, and it is not a pleasant scenario for the Jews. To turn the Jealousy Narrative back on them, Jesus explained that the Gentile Ninevites would rise at the judgment and condemn this present generation because the Ninevites “repented at the preaching of Jonas” (v. 41). And the Gentile Queen of Sheba would rise at the judgment and condemn this generation because she was able “to hear the wisdom of Solomon” (v. 42). The shaming of the Jews by Gentiles in the day of judgment would be strange, were it not for our knowledge of the Jealousy Narrative. The Queen of Sheba and the Ninevites—Gentiles all—will be justified by their words, and this “adulterous generation,” the Pharisees, will be condemned by theirs. That is the contrast we are offered.
Since the context here is “the day of judgment” at which men are either justified or condemned by their words, it would be well to know what, precisely, the Ninevites and the Queen of Sheba actually said:
And Jonah … said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown. So the people of Nineveh believed God (Jonah 3:5).
It was a true report which I heard in mine own land of thine acts, and of thy wisdom: Howbeit I believed not their words, until I came (2 Chronicles 9:5-6).
Since the people of Nineveh proclaimed a fast and turned from their evil ways (Jonah 3:5-10), and since the Queen of Sheba loaded Solomon with gifts (2 Chronicles 9:9), it was a great opportunity for Jesus to say these Gentiles would be justified by their works in the day of judgment. Jonah even says “God saw their works, … [and] repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them.” (Jonah 3:10). What a perfect opportunity to say the Ninevites could look forward to a future justification based on their works. But He did not. Instead, He said they would be justified by their words, and said their words were just an overflow of what was in their hearts: “we believe God!” and “It was a true report!” But the words of the Pharisees were “we do not believe!” Works are not in view here—only words of belief and words of unbelief.
The Pharisees finally asked for a sign that they, too, might believe, but the only sign they would receive is the sign of the Resurrection (vv. 38-40). Thus, Jesus reveals here what He ultimately revealed to Paul—namely that faith is trust in God that springs from the overflow of the heart, and is expressed with our words:
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Romans 10:9-10)
Applied to the Queen of Sheba and the Ninevites, they believed with their hearts unto righteousness and confessed with their mouths unto salvation. Not so for the Pharisees.
To complete the Jealousy Narrative, Jesus explained that while the demon-possessed man had been freed from his bondage, the final condition of these Pharisees would be seven times worse than that man’s original condition. “Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation” (v. 45).
And what can we say of Jason Stellman? Only that he stopped reading at “by thy words thou shalt be justified” (v. 37) and skipped forward to “whosoever shall do the will of my Father” (v. 50), and concluded that Jesus had our works in mind for our final justification at the last day. Had he paused to reflect on why and how Jesus was making the Jews jealous, he would have seen that when we rise at the judgment, like the Queen of Sheba and the repentant Ninevites, we are still justified at the last day as we always have been—by faith alone.
But there is more. Jesus has shown us here that the righteousness by which we are finally justified is the same righteousness by which we were saved at our conversion. In both examples Jesus appeals, for final justification, to the same righteousness they received by faith when they first heard the wisdom of Solomon and the preaching of Jonah. For “with the heart man believeth unto righteousness,” and “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:10, 17).
In Jason Stellman’s conversion testimony at the Coming Home Network, he explained how he had arrived at the Roman Catholic gospel: “And so I thought, ‘I need to go back to Paul, but I also need to go back to Jesus, too. I need to start looking at the way Jesus speaks about judgment, sin, the relationship of faith and works, and what happens at the last day.’ ” (45:20 – 46:00)
Indeed he does.
This is so good, I don’t know what to say. God has gifted you Tim.
I’m still trying to figure Jason out. I’m 2 kingdom. He’s two kingdom. I’m protestant. He’s catholic.
So there’s that.
Andrew, I think if you look at the people who jump ship to Rome its always the emotional thing. It is alack of faith. They always need more they say, a fuller experience in the sacraments etc. Its like the Jews in Hebrews, they needed a physical altar, a physical Priesthood, a physical sacrifice. Something they could touch. Drama. The writer of Hebrews called it shrinking back in your faith. Christ said God seeks worshipers in Spirit and in truth. His alar is in heaven, His priesthood is in heaven, and His sacrifice is in heaven, where we are seated with him. Discontent christians find Rome so they can deal with their nee to insert themselves into salvation, it comforts their conscience, instead of believing the gospel and trusting God.
Kevin, I hear you. But for me, you can’t figure out what goes on in the heart of a man. These are deeply personal and in many ways mysterious matters. As a protestant, I appreciate people standing up to Rome. As a human, it’s just not in me to count this kind of broad brushing statements about why they leave our religion, as helpful.
Lets listen to them and hear them out. Lest we lose any more
Take care.
I am certainly all for constructive conversation, too, of course. The purpose of the blog is to encourage the sheep lest they stray into a Roman pasture, and to equip them. That said, my view of Roman Catholicism is largely consistent with what many of the Reformers believed: namely that she is antichrist. The Westminster Confession, before it was modified in the 1900s, used to read,
This I do not deny. In fact I most emphatically affirm it. My book, Graven Bread, says as much.
That said, there is an intellectual case to be made for the gospel, and it is my desire to make it here.
Best,
Tim
Hi Tim,
Yes.
Your comment reminded me of these words from Machen:
Your personal history gives you a unique vantage point into RCism, as Jason has one into reformed theology, having his theological education through us.
I support you Tim! I probably need a “machen is my homeboy” T-shirt. He shares his opinions on RCism, and I am happy to bring those things to light.
Ultimately, my position is the Gospel may exist in Rome, but it is a blurred, unpure view of the same. It is in Scripture, God’s Word, where we meet the Divine. Luther figured this out. Protestantism came from nowhere (we trace back to the beginning, but we share a lineage with RCs until the 13th century or so, per my view).
I desire to see RCs join our religion. But I know this is God’s work to do, by his Spirit.
Thank you again, Tim.
Grace and peace. Until next time..
*we came from nowhere…
What I mean is, consider protestantism, coming later on the scene as it has (compared to Rome and Constantinople), and what we prots have achieved.
Who would have predicted the success that Protestantism has been. No one.
But we rest not in our laurels. We rest in Jesus.
Is all I mean to say.
I’m done.
Thanks, Andrew! Always welcome here.
Tim
I’ll not forget your hospitality, Tim. Keep up the good work. I may lurk around here, but am otherwise piping down for some time.
Take care.
Also, getting back to Jason Stellman..
I’ve followed his blog since 2012. I know him only from his writing there, his posts at places like http://oldlife.org or http://www.calledtocommunion.com
If I have a point, it’s that it’s hard to know someone from the internet alone. If Jason is happy with his decision of having poped, power to him. What he does in his private life and which church he goes to has no effect on me, nor should it.
He does write a lot, so we read his words, and draw our own conclusion.
As is true of everything.
Timothy,
Good article. The whole “word” idea brought this to mind, worth a read if you have time:
http://oldlife.org/2013/08/logocentrism-is-good/
Grace and peace.
Kevin and Andrew, I gotta jump in here.
Kevin says those who jump ship to Rome have emotional issues.
Well, I’ve know folks who have jumped in both directions and I think you should ponder this; Those who swim the Tiber from a Protestant church always, ALWAYS, love their former church, value the friends they had, love the Bible, and love their parents for the strong basis they were given in the Christian life.
However, often (not always ) but more often than not, former Catholics turned Protestant seldom have one good thing to say about their former lives. They often fight with their parents because they are still in the “Whore o’ Babylon”.
(One picture/1000 words; I submit Kevin as exhibit A. I suspect him of having some Catholicism in his background. )
May I relate a story? Many years ago enrolled in a class at what was then named Western Conservative Baptist Seminary in Portland, O. The class was on Roman Catholicism and it was being offered to Protestant minister-types of all denominations. The professor was happy to have me as the token Catholic. Most of the folks were nice but there was one fellow and his wife who bristled at my very presence. The wife would practically hiss whenever I spoke up. Sometimes I would look up from whatever I was reading or writing to find her glaring at me.
Well. it turns out the husband ( and maybe the wife ), Tom, was a former Catholic who had gone to the same Catholic high school as me. One night Tom asked if he could give his testimony. As he was the token ex-Catholic everybody perked up to hear from the horse’s mouth what it was that drove him out of Rome and to the Gospel.
Tom waxed eloquent with the standard cant; superstition, idolatry, works, rituals, money, never hearing the name of Jesus yadda -yadda-yadda. He explained how, as a Catholic kid, he had never seen a Bible. After a testimony from someone who had actually been there, a hush fell over the class. Tom had confirmed everyone’s worst fears. They looked at me to see how I could possibley defend against Tom’s eye-witness testimony. The wife was practically purring to have my cloven hooves exposed for all to see.
Remembering that Tom had also gone to Central Catholic High, I asked him how it was he had never seen a Bible. I reminded him that on the first day of freshman year all boys ( it was an all boys school then ) were issue either a red Ronald Knox edition or a blue St. Joseph’s Confraternity edition Bible. I reminded him that we had to read the Bible and had classes on it daily. No exceptions, even non-Christian kids had to read the Bible.. If a kid acted up or came late for school, punishment often consisted of staying after school and copying page after page from the Bible they had to lug for 4 years. ( I remember these Bibles and how we boys would giggle at the passages where God would tell the Hebrews to slaughter every male “that pisseth against the wall”. when entering the Promised Land.)
I went on with my talk about those Bibles and the Catholic school Tom and I attended, the priests who taught us,and the mandatory knowledge of the Bible to pass from year to year.
After my speech, Tom was speechless. Maybe out of embarrassment. I like to think his silence was from realizing how wrong he had been. He had forgotten 4 years of his life and had fallen into the trap selective recall. He had gotten addicted to the attention one gets from being an expert on Romish Superstition. He had been titillating Protestant folks with stereotypes and hysteria for years. He had cut off his parents as damned souls who had their tickets to hell. He was full of hate for his own childhood. He was sick.
Andrew, think of Scott Hahn, Tim Staples, Steve Ray, Dwight Longenecker, and the hundreds of converts who have given their stories on Marcus Grodi’s “Homing Home Network”. Never, never, never, do they have a bad thing to say about being a Protestant.
Now, think of the former Catholics you have known. I need say no more.
All the best
Andrew, think of Scott Hahn, Tim Staples,
There are many Catholics in my life, Jim. I too bring my personal history of the same when I read and write out here.
I’ll share more on that as appropriate and as time allows. Thanks for sharing yours.
Jim, I have no Catholicism in my background. My disagreements are strictly from study as evangelical and now Reformed Christian. The reason people who leave Rome point out the error is because they were blind but now they see. The veil has been removed. They are saved. The Roman gospel does not save. In fact Galatians 1:9 Paul can have no other gospel in mind than Rome. I rally hope Tim will explore my assertion yesterday about how Satan makes good look evil and evil look good. It may have stunned him when i said that Everything Rome preaches is the exact opposite of Scripture. I believe this. Yes the early councils affirmed truths. But all have been corrupted. Foe example Roman’s whole teaching is a faulty view of the trinity when they collapse soteriology into ecclesiology. Christ is the head of the church, not in Rome its the Pope. Mary is the mother of Jesus, not in Rome, she replaces Jesus. Scripture says no works in justification, not in Rome they are prominent, Scripture says one mediator, not in Rome everybody is mediating for everybody. Scripture says you can know that you have eternal life, not in Rome 2nd plank and no perseverance. Scripture says perfect sacrifice once, not in Rome multiple sacrifices imperfect, Scripture says grace is free, not in Rome tool to merit salvation, scripture says grace redeems and renews, not in Rome it makes divine, scripture says Christ Priesthood, sacrifice,altar in heaven, not in Rome still have Him strapped to the altar. Jesus said no one takes his life from Him He lays it down of His own accord, not in Rome, He is the eternal victim in the hands of a Priest. AS scripture says Satan makes good look evil and evil look good.
Andrew, Im just making an observation of why i think people leave Rome. I don’t broad brush people nor judge them. I agree people’s decisions are personal. But there is no doubt to me the appeal of the physical over the Spiritual and some discontentment. I could be wrong.
Completely fair. I try to stay off these religious dicussion forums. Religion is hard to talk about in such an impersonal setting. Thank you for standing up for us protestants in Jason’s blog. Keep at it all you can, giving voice to who we are. And take care of yourself, brother.
Kevin, More than once you have tried to draw a dichotomy between being saved by Christ and being saved by Catholic scapulars, sacraments, candles, Masses, Mary, etc. etc.
If you ever find a Catholic who wears a scapular ( as I do ), receives the Sacraments, ( as I do ), lights an occasional votive candle, ( as I do )attends Mass (as I do ) INSTEAD of relying 100% on Christ ( as I do ), please let me know. I have never met such an animal.
Please understand Brother, scapulars, Mary, Mass, etc, depend totally on Christ for their efficacy. It is always assumed or understood by any Catholic who lights a candle, dips his fingers in Holy Water, genuflects, follows the Pope, Confesses to a priest or makes a novena, that Jesus Christ, God Almighty, Crucified, Resurrected and Ascended to the right hand of the Father is what or Who stands under all these things and gives them meaning. Again, let me know of any Catholic you know who doesn’t believe in Jesus but lights candles, goes to Mass, prays a Rosary, etc. I would like to see this mythical critter. I keep hearing about him but I think he is like Big Foot. Folks say they know he lives in the woods but they just can’t catch him.
“namely that she is antichrist”
She, the Roman Catholic Church, is the bride of Christ.
Please be good and behave yourselves at the wedding banquet.
To be antichrist is to be anti-incarnation. The Word of God, second person of the Trinity, became flesh. His Most Precious Blood washes away our sin.
No Church on earth ecept the Bride proclaims this Truth, memorializes this Truth, worships this Truth and actually eats and drinks the Body and Blood of this Truth to grow and be one with this Truth.
Thank you, Debbie, for writing.
For now I will make only a brief comment. (More later, as it is a great topic for discussion.) As to your observation,
I think we can both agree that it is possible to believe firmly that you are for something, while in practice to be against it. Jesus observed, “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me” (Matthew 15:8). Yet “this people” were convinced that they were honoring God.
I will suggest here (and elaborate later) that Mary’s elevated role in the Roman Catholic church is, in fact, “anti-incarnational.” As is the papacy. As is the Eucharistic sacrifice.
Let’s suppose God is angry at me for my sin, yet for the sake of His own Name, and as a testimony to His great mercy, He sends His Son not only to die in my place and shield me from His just wrath, but more than that, to bring me into friendly relations with Him through His Son Who now lives forever, as a representative of God’s people, to intercede for me to the Father. So far so good, right?
Now suppose someone comes along and says it is Jesus Who is angry at me, but yet for the sake of His own Name, and as a testimony to His great mercy, He sends His mother not only to suffer in my place and shield me from His just wrath, but more than that, to bring me into friendly relations with Him through her who now lives forever, as a representative of His people, at His side to intercede for me to the Son.
Perhaps in your eyes this is not anti-incarnational because, after all, we would not call her Christ’s mother if He had not been incarnated, right? So we can say it is not formally anti-incarnational because in its expression there is an inherent acknowledgement of Jesus’ birth. But it is materially anti-incarnational because it rejects the purpose of the incarnation and removes the sinner from his savior—and does so in the most elegant and theological of terms.
In my opinion, that is the same error Jesus rejected when He said, “This people … honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me,” and has a form of religion, but not the power.
More on this later, but for now, I do appreciate your contribution here.
Tim
Oh my heavens, Tim! You wrote to Debbie the following, “He sends His mother not only to suffer in my place and shield me from His just wrath, but more than that, to bring me into friendly relations with Him through her who now lives forever, as a representative of His people, at His side to intercede for me to the Son.”
I don’t understand how you can write this. I remember distinctly telling you that Mary did not suffer in our stead according to a system of Penal Substitution.
I thought I was clear on how the Father could freely accept Mary’s participation in the four aspects of Calvary; Merit, Satisfaction, Sacrifice and Redemption. But as for Penal Substitution, neither Mary ( nor Christ for that matter ) was punished in our stead.
I would encourage Debbie to scroll up to find my previous post in which I go into more detail.
Well, Jim, I do remember you telling me that. But that’s just Jim talking. When I read Fr. Eymard (whose work was commended by Cardinal Gibbons, and came with the standard Imprimatur and a Nihil Obstat), and the words of an approved vision of Mary, I hear something from the church of Rome, which as you have many times reminded me, is authoritative.
Eymard: “Mary took on herself the debt of their crimes. She expiated them by her sufferings.”
Apparition of Mary at LaSallette: “If my people will not submit, I shall be forced to let fall the arm of my Son. It is so strong, so heavy, that I can no longer withhold it. For how long a time do I suffer for you! If I would not have my Son abandon you, I am compelled to pray to him without ceasing; and as to you, you take not heed of it. However much you pray, however much you do, you will never recompense the pains I have taken for you.”
This is anti-incarnational.
Thanks,
Tim
Timothy, Fr. Eymard , no doubt, would just as well say that “Jesus took on the debt of their crimes and thereby expiated them”.
That does not mean he subscribed to Penal Substitution. Jesus certainly did make expiation for our sins by His obedience unto death. He merited and made satisfaction by His sacrifice. He redeemed us.
Mary participated in a subordinate way in her Son’s work. At no time was He punished by the Father pouring out His wrath on Him in our stead, nor did He descend to hell to suffer as the damned in our stead.
Christ merited grace for us in strict justice, Mary by way of friendship or what theologians call congruously.
Christ satisfied for our sins by giving God something infinitely more valuable in degree than the offense given by our sins. Mary participated in that satisfaction as I mentioned in my previous. She offered her Son in sacrifice to the degree that as He was hers to offer. As for paying the price of our redemption, as she had no sin of her own, God could accept her participation in her Son’s work in overthrowing Satan and his hold on us. As Eve was a willing accomplice of the serpent in our captivvity, Mary as the New Eve to the Second Adam, played a role in humbling that devil. No Penal Substitution involved here, Tim.
As for the La Salette material you present, let me just say that Mary, as mother of the Davidic King Jesus, has the same office of all Davidic Queen Mothers from Bathsheba down to Nehushta, that of intercessor or mediatress with her Son the King.
Not anti-Incarnational but quite Biblical Tim.
Thanks for your attention to my post.
Tim, upon rereading my previous post, Let me just sum it up. Mary did not participate in our Redemption by way of Penal substitution because her Son did not redeem us by means of Penal Substitution. And Eymard’s words should not be read in a calvinist sense.
Sacrifice, expiation, price.redemption, propitiation, debt, whatever, are terms that fit nicely into a Catholic view of the Atonement too Tim.
Trent ” to the one who works well to the end” and believes in God salvation is to be offered, not only as a gift, but as a reward to their merits and good works.” Paul” to the one who does not work” but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly. Justification for a Romanist is a recognition of an intrinsic qualification for a reward. for Paul it was the opposite. It was a declaration about someone who was utterly unqualified. God declares and ungodly person righteous, not because we are, but because he doesn’t count our sin against us. ” i have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance” Rome has put up sacramental efficacy in the place of the atonement. There are only 4 verses in the Epistles on the Lord’s supper, yet Rome has made coin the sacraments of the ” new Law” solely meritorious in father justification. You do the sacraments you are in an if you don’t you’re not. So grace becomes a soul substance, a means of exchange in the Church’s merit system. There is no human institution like Roman Catholicism in Scripture or a sacramental system of meriting heaven anywhere in scripture. It is fictitious divine worship that has replaced a simple life of faith. All catholics should read Romans 10: 9-10 ” with the heart one believes resulting in righteousness” with the mouth one confesses resulting in salvation. There is no works or infused habit anywhere in this verse. Works are simply the fruit of faith. Every time the Lord heals someone in the gospels he says your faith has saved you. The eschatological immediacy of salvation is amazing.
Kevin,
You say,”Rome has put up sacramental efficacy in the place of the atonement”
I have told you several time times the Sacraments apply the Atonement. You persist in confusing meritorious and instrumental causation.
“There is no human institution like Roman Catholicism in Scripture or a sacramental system of meriting heaven anywhere in scripture”.
Catholics don’t merit via the Sacraments. Christ merited Sacramental efficacy on the wood of the cross. It is applied to us via the Sacraments.
“Every time the Lord heals someone in the gospels he says your faith has saved you.”
Not quite Kevin. The man lowered through the roof was healed on account of the faith of others.
As for the woman who was forgiven because of her faith, Our Lord also said her sins were forgiven because she loved much.
Kevin, Could you explain this statement you made, “. But there is no doubt to me the appeal of the physical over the Spiritual…”
Do you mean the fact we Catholics have “stuff”? Assuming this what you mean, I co-sign Debbie’s post above.
Christ became Incarnate. He did not disdain having a body of “stuff”. He dwelt in Mary’s womb, suckled from her breasts, suffered in the flesh and healed cripples and blind men of physical ailments with mud, spittle and the hem of His garment. He established the Sacraments as an extension of His Incarnation. You seem to be leaning towards manichaeism.
St, Ignatius of Antioch warned of the gnostics who disdained the flesh of Christ in the Eucharist because they belittled the physical world as an instrument of grace. The said the material world was evil and only the spiritual was good.
Before the Incarnation, images were forbidden as God has no form. That changed when Jesus came. That is why most of the great art of the world was painted by Catholics to adorn our churches and cathedrals.
The OT ceremonies were “shadows” of what was to come. Whatever the reality behind a shadow may be, it must be more substantial than the shadow. Think of the Shew Bread in the Temple, for instance. Catholics say it was a shadow of the Eucharist. What do you say it was the shadow or type of? How is that shadow fulfilled in the Church?
Ever wonder why circumcision was decreed by God? It was a strange custom, wasn’t it?
I told you once that, had Adam not sinned, grace would have been passed on via human generation. That is pretty carnal, huh? After the Fall, circumcision became a sign of the Fall and man’s dependence on God to do what man could not.
The Church is an extension of the Incarnation. Her sacraments are physical things used to convey grace, And nobody Baptizes him or herself or hears their own Confession. They must go to another flesh and blood member of the Church for that.
Correct me if I am wrong but it seems there is a lurking manichaeism behind your attitude towards Catholic stuff.
Luther was convinced that the mass was the greatest abomination which would not permit men to be saved. Daniel 11:31 ” Forces from him shall appear and profane the Temple and the fortress, and shall take away the burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate. He shall seduce with flattery those who violate the covenant, but people who know their God shall stand firm and take action. Christ said He offered himself up and that none could take his life from Him, He laid it down of His own volition. Yet the Roman mass has him forever an eternal victim strapped to an alar. They won’t let Him off the cross. Instead of a meal at a table as a means of God’s free gift of grace to us, Rome ( trent) anathematizes anyone who says it isn’t a real sacrifice. The Roman mass is a work on the part of the participant to purchase more justice and grace for themselves and their friends. It is a means of offering themselves to propitiate their own temporal punishment. O’brien the expert says the Priest pulls christ down as His regent and offers Him up again and again and again for the efficacy of the many. Some power huh? Despite Scripture’s clear teaching that He offered himself once and for all and it perfected for all time those for whom he died. Despite Scriptures clear teaching there is no longer any sacrifice remaining for sin. This wound Christ and reduces His one perfect sacrifice as insufficient.
Kevin, As for your, “Luther was convinced that the mass was the greatest abomination…”, Don’t you remember the dozen a so posts I did on Mr. Luther on the other blog? Why would you think I am impressed by his opinion on anything?
As for your quotes from Daniel, you are asserting that he was talking about the Mass. I can just as well say he was speaking of the time when the Reformers would take away the Mass. Your word against mine.
You go on to bring up the famous quote from John O’Brian about the priest calling Christ down from heaven onto the altar. On the other blog, I submitted a lengthy piece on Transubstantiation and how Christ does not leave heaven and go from point A to point B. There were scores of give and take postings as a follow up. Please go back and read them there so things don’t get redundant.
Jim, Jesus said the father was looking for worshipers that worship Him in Spirit and in truth. At the end the discourse on faith in John 6, the Apostles, as the people were confused about physically eating His body. They didn’t understand He was talking about faith. So He tells them the words I speak to you are Spirit, the flesh profits nothing. It is a violation of Jewish Law to drink blood. He wasn’t speaking about physically eating and drinking Him. All of John is in this language. Jesus says he is the door, that doesn’t make Him apiece of wood. He says I’m the shepherd, that does’t mean he is going to show up at your door and trim little daisy. He said he is the vine, does’t mean He is a tree. Rome collapses the head into the body so the church is natural body of Christ. The eucharist is the physical body Ratzinger says, and the church is the historical body, and its on big corporate kingdom being fleshed out right here. It is an over realized eschatology. Jesus body is in heaven. He said he would not eat with us until he returns. Rome collapses the incarnation ascention parousia. And a cosmic Jesus everywhere is Jesus of Nazareth nowhere. His incarnation is continuing in the Roman church in the acts of the church. So the participant has undergone the removal of the nature of sin from the soul. Grace is a tool to merit salvation in their climb out of nature into the divine thru the continual actualization of the personality. In Christianity we believe in a finished incarnation that actually redeemed us and we share the good news about this past event and sing the amen with the church. We participate in Christ in the only way scripture allows, thru the Spirit who brings us to heaven were we worship. It is the spirit that brings all of Christ’s victory spoils, not the church. the church is the recipient of grace, not the provider. But in Rome the church is the head( Christ) and relinquishes grace thru secondary causes, the church, Priest, sacrament. The Reformers came to save the Apostles and the early church from the hair splitting academics and return us to the gospel of scripture. they dispensed of the manure pile and the ecclesiastical machinery that had developed in the church, that was mostly human in origin and content. I hope this helps. K
Thanks, Jim,
Perhaps I can expand on this in a later entry. For now: The Father is no longer angry at me for my sins, and is certainly not angry at me for the wounds that were inflicted on Jesus on the cross because of me. In fact, it pleased the Lord to bruise Him (Isaiah 53:10), so affectionately does He regard His Holy Name (Ezekiel 36:22), and so much does He love those for whom He sent His Son to die (Galatians 2:20). Having made peace through the blood of his cross (Colossians 1:20), and “being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:1). We are enemies no longer. God simply is not angry at me any more, and He is now even propitious toward me (Romans 3:25). He’s not angry about what His Son went through, either. One sacrifice, it is complete, I am reconciled to Him, and He was pleased to do it.
Enter these visions of Mary, which constantly remind us that the Father is still angry at the wounds inflicted on His Son, Jesus is so angry that Mary can hardly hold back His wrath, and Mary’s “immaculate heart” is outraged by the sins of the world for which there must be further reparation. And Rome blesses these visions and apparitions and commends them to her people as worthy of belief.
I believe you when you say nothing in the previous paragraph offends the sensibility of the Romanist. But there is something grievously wrong with the Roman gospel when God’s gracious solution for sin (i.e., punishing His Son in my place) is represented as the problem (i.e., God was angry before, and now He, Jesus and Mary are further outraged by the price that had to be paid, and is still being paid, for sins).
We have a fundamental disagreement about what was accomplished on the Cross, I do not deny. The religion of Rome formally and systematically denies the once and for all sacrifice of Christ, and in fact continually perpetuates Jesus’ alleged anger at His people, for He is constantly “outraged in the Blessed Sacrament,” for which Mary must constantly make even further reparations, for which we will never be able to repay her.
If God is in debt to Mary (and it is a debt He can never fully discharge) and we are in debt to Mary and “she herself” has told us that we can never repay what she has done for us, one does get the distinct impression that Jesus’ death did not accomplish its intended purpose, and Mary is actually the superintendent of operations in Heaven and on earth.
That is very anti-incarnational.
Warm regards,
Tim
Tim, Nailed it.
Tim, I know Catholic women who are bonkers on Mary that hold this same attitude of anger, that the Father at the wounds inflicted on His son and therefore they misrepresent Christ as transcendent and a tough guy. And Mary has to go soften Him up for us. Its sad because it robs Christ of His loving compassion. ” Come unto me all ye of heavy burden and i will give you rest. You hit the nail. The distance of the anger of God has been removed for the man of faith alone in Christ alone and God no longer sees us as an enemy, but an adopted son and heir.
Tim, by all means, we must explore the theory known as Penal Substitution and its corollary doctrine of Limited Atonement ( probably the most unbiblical doctrine possible imaginable ). But not tonight as it is late here,
Salve Regina
Good morning Tim,
I already posted a bit on “Is God in Dept to Mary” but I should probably take up where we left off last night.
In this post I will say that the OT sacrifices were not penal substitutions. Never do we see the poor animal punished or abused in anyway. If the victim felt pain or terror, the sacrifice was not acceptable to God. The primary sacrificial types Christ fulfilled is seen in the Passover lamb. Please recall that this little animal was taken into the home as a pet or family member for a few days before its slaying. No PS here, Tim.
The laying on of hands by the priest was not to transfer the debt of punishment onto the beast so it could be punished in the stead of the people. This includes the Day of Atonement sacrifice.
Okay, that is my short catalyst for our discussion on Penal Substitution. Until we clear this up, there is probably not much use in discussing Mary’s participation in Christ’s sacrifice.
Tim so insightful Rome ” they perpetuate Jesus continued anger with his people” So true. I have one friend who sends me bloody pictures of Christ on the cross as if to make one feel guilty. But I feel nothing but thanksgiving and awe and peace for what He has done for us. There is no peace in the roman gospel and there shouldnt be.
Jim, Catholics merit increase of justice at the sacraments. Learn your doctrine.
Kevin, we increase in justification through the Sacraments. We MERIT increase of Justification by good works.
I would prefer it if you could refrain from telling me what I believe.
Jim, you said ” Christ became incarnate.” No kidding. But he left us the Spirit as the only means of participation in Him. He communicates himself and His body thru the Spirit. Augustine didn’t believe in transubstantiation, which didn’t enter the church until 1200. Augustine said christ isn’t in the bread but the one taking the bread thru the Spirit. He said the Father is looking for worshipers who worship in Spirit and in truth, the flesh profits nothing. How can Rome call it an un bloody sacrifice and then turn around and say it is His blood. How can they separate the blood in the cup from the body in the Jesus wafer. Hocus Pocus. That literally is what the Priest says in Latin. We believe Christ is in the sacrament thru the Spirit and faith and the word. Augustine called it the visible word. You worship a two foot area, the bread. Have you seen the Catholic women who sit for hours and worship a peace of bread. His altar, Priesthood and body are in Heaven, and His Spirit transports us there to worship. You have him stopped to the altar still and the crucifix. Let Him off! He is risen! amen!
Kevin, You say “Jim, you said ” Christ became incarnate.” No kidding. But he left us the Spirit as the only means of participation in Him.”
Do you mean to say this militates against the Eucharist?
You go on to say, “Augustine said christ isn’t in the bread but the one taking the bread thru the Spirit.”
St. Augustine said Mary gave milk to our Bread. Sounds pretty much like he held to the Real Presence.
That will have to do it Kevin as I am not going to get caught up explaining over and over ad nauseam everything I have already covered with you on Jason Stellman’s blog.
Jim, JPII committed his whole life into the hands of Mary and the church. She is called co medatrix, mother of all graces. The Roman church makes her responsible for everything. tim is exactly right, they elevate and insert Mary between a man and His savior. Like I said God the Father is a tough guy and so is Jesus and they are transcendent, so you go to Mary the mother of all graces and she gets on His case and so on. Christ didn’t come to this earth to tear down all barriers between God and man to put sacraments and Mary in-between them. Baptism and the supper are the only two sacraments and they are means of grace. But faith overcomes the world and sustains us thru all of salvation. Not Mary, not sacraments. Christ thru His spirit mediates our relationship with God. The Mary of the Bible is not the same person as the Mary of Romanism. The Mary of the bible an honorable and model christian called herself a sinner and a bonds lave of the Lord. She had children. Jesus deflected undue honor from her one time calling her woman. Paul calls her “born of a woman” She played no prominent role in the early church. The scripture has little to say about her. But, like with sacraments it grew out of control.
Kevin,
I am getting dizzy trying to find all the stuff I have been posting here but I have answered your,
“Like I said God the Father is a tough guy and so is Jesus and they are transcendent, so you go to Mary the mother of all graces and she gets on His case and…” with a piece on the office of queen mother of the Davidic kingdom somewhere. Find it.
Men would do well to remember that they did not come into being without their mother’s wombs.
Jesus, the only Son of God, could not become incarnated without a womb. The Eternal Father prepared a holy tabernacle, the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, for his Son. Our salvation came through a human woman. This is how God chose to do it.
Now for all you parents out there, take a look at Microchimerism. It most commonly results from the exchange of cells across the placenta during pregnancy, however there is also evidence that cells may be transferred from mother to infant through nursing. These cells have been discovered in mothers decades after they have delivered their children.
The Precous Blood of Jesus Christ was literally in her before he was born and long after. Kind of makes you start to go oh my ………
If nothing else, I understand many people feeling uneasy about Mary. Surely all Christians can appreciate her maternal assistance and virtues. And please remember that her blood- stained hands pulled out the thorns embedded into His Precious Head, that alone should make one stop and be respectful.
To be violently and irreverantly anti-Mary is to be anti-incarnation (this is what she was born for, to be the Mother of our Lord and Savior) and this most definitely leads to being anti-christ.
All men should love, honor and defend their mothers. As a mother myself, I only want my children to be saved and I pray for them constantly. This is what Mary does. Why would anyone not want her to pray for them?
Peace
Debbie,
You said, “The Precious Blood of Jesus Christ was literally in her before he was born and long after. Kind of makes you start to go oh my ………please remember that her blood- stained hands pulled out the thorns embedded into His Precious Head, that alone should make one stop and be respectful.”
Beautiful meditation! How I wish our non-Catholic friends would get off the debating team for a while and just think about those passages in scripture they just read without taking the time to absorb.
Dear Debbie,
I do not believe that I have been “anti-Mary” here. My only concern is that truth prevail, and if it is true that Mary was a sinner, we do her no honor with accolades of immaculacy. In any case, I am very glad to have the thoughts of a mother here, and your comments are most welcome.
Best,
Tim
It really gets interesting when you start meditating on what all the Precious Blood is and does. Just reflect on what happens to us humans when and why we get blood transfusions …… He is fully God and fully Human.
O loving Jesus Christ, whose mercy is endless, how can we express our love for Thee? Sprinkle me, O Divine Savior, and all men with Thy Precious Blood, so that we, O Crucified Love, may love Thee from now on with all our hearts, and worthily honor the price of our salvation.
What is Grace? The life of the Trinity.
Who is the Trinity? The Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Who is Mary? The daughter of God the Father, Mother of God the Son, and Spouse of the Holy Spirit.
Why is Mary full of Grace? See above.
Why is Mary called Mother most pure? See above.
Why is Mary called Mother most chaste? See above.
Why is Mary called inviolate? See above.
Why is Mary called Virgin most prudent, most venerable, most renowned, most powerful, most merciful, most faithful?
See above.
God was pleased to have ALL His fullness reside in Jesus Christ and through Him, to reconcile to Himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through His blood, shed on the cross.
“He was pleased to do it.”
True, God was pleased, but do you have any concept of what this means in Divine Charity? You keep adding your human conceptions of love and forgiveness in your own time table.
Once means ever new. God is outside of time and space.
I humbly ask you to meditate on the crucifixtion for an hour and come back and try to put your thoughts together about what kind of sacrifice this was and why is it priceless. It wouldn’t be priceless or precious if was above and beyond what you are proposing it to be.
A simple small example – ask any mother what labor was like and she will say it was an extreme sacrifice that hurt like … but was worth it and she was pleased to do it.
There is a Divine wrath coming and a Divine judgement. What is that all about if as you say “God simply is not angry at me any more”.
He loves us more than we know, more than we know, more than we know, more than we know – we really have no clue
(just as children have no clue what their parents go through for them)
get the point?
I apologize for my tone of “get the point”.
It is so unimagineable unfathomable and such a mystery.
Thank goodness we just have to be like small children and accept it. This however, does not mean that God and His Salvation is simple, He just lavishes it on us so lovingly.
I could bake with blood, sweat and tears for 10 hours a day and be pleased that the one I love simple enjoys and is happy and full.
Debbie,
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. I did not take any offense at your question, “get the point?”
I might challenge you, though, on your statement that “once means ever new.” Hebrews 9:26-28 speaks directly to this when it says,
I invite your attention to verse 27 in which the author defines “once” before he then uses the word to describe Jesus’ sacrifice. When he says that just as it is appointed to men to die once, so Christ was offered once, it then makes very clear that there is only one appearance to take away sin, and second appearance that is not to take away sin. All this is using the term “once” with the same meaning it has when we say men die “once.” If “once” meant “ever new” in this context, there would never be a judgment, because men would be continually dying anew. Clearly once, does not mean “ever new” here.
It is a convenient—but illegitimate—hermeneutic to say that because God is outside of space and time that His word does not mean what it says. The context very much has the once for all sacrifice taking place in time, and taking place once.
Earlier in Hebrews, we are told that we do not see things outside of a created space time continuum, for “now we see not yet all things put under him” (Hebrews 2:8).
Since He is outside of space and time, why do we not yet see all things put under him as they certainly are in eternity? Just so, we do not see “once” as ever new. Jesus’ once for all sacrifice took place in time. It does not take place continually outside of space and time.
Thanks so much for your thoughts,
Tim
Tim, Did you get that our salvation came thru a human woman. God should have kept Christ in heaven. He already had a sinless woman on earth. Remember Mary was born sinless too, even though the scripture says for all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God, and Mary called herself a sinner. Lets just pass on scripture. Mark my word Tim its coming in Rome. Watch closely. For all intents and purposes Rome has substituted Mary for Christ.Next thing we will hear is she hung on a cross for our sins. No way can Catholics who say salvation came thru Mary go to heaven. No way.
You have just spouted heresy.
Shame on you, do you find it funny?
I assure you, you will be held accountable.
His Mercy endures forever, He is our light and our salvation.
” For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one would scarcely die for a righteous person though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die- but God shows his love for us that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by Him from the wrath of God. For while we were yet enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. Much more that, we also rejoice in God thru our Lord Jesus Christ , thru whom we have now received reconciliation. That is why we say God is not angry at us anymore. christ has removed the barrier and the enmity and reconciled us to God past tense. Luther called this the most liberating chapter in all the bible. Woman in our church asks there husbands to help them understand Scripture if they have a husband that knows Scripture.
I apologize for my last statement. I didn’t mean it Chauvinistically.
The incarnation is finished and the reconciliation has happened for all believers. As I have just cited above in Romans 5 above. We are friends of God. There will be no divine wrath coming and divine judgment coming for believers, only for unbelievers. For those who believe there is, may I suggest a view of the church at His coming. Revelations 19: 7- 10. Its a beautiful thing. Those who trust in Christ alone for there salvation can have assurance and peace now. Romans 4:16. 5:1, 8:1, 8:30, 1 John 5:13. Jesus said in John 5:24 those who simply trust Christ have passed out of judgment and out of death into life. This is the glory of the good news. For Catholics its a different thing. Its unfinished and unsure. We pray they may know the words of Paul in Galatians 5:1 ” It was for freedom christ has set us free.” If Catholics would just let him off the cross they would see He is risen and so have we. Amen
Kevin,
We went over this verse of Scripture over Jason’s blog and you seem to insist on your error in interpreting Paul here
Before we go over it again, let me ask you this did Jesus commit personal sin and fall short of God Grace? I say No, and hopeful you agree with me, well Jess was a fully man too was He not? So If Paul is saying ALL in a distributive sense as you seem to suggest, then he would be laying and for that the HS would be laying
Do 2 years old babies commit personal sin and fall short of God’s Grace? Off course not, there you have Millions of those. Another exception
Now do you agree that severely mentally retarded people cannot commit personal sin, you see Kevin there is another set of people who fall in this except from the All. Paul would be lying
I asked you if Paul would convince anyone and the Judaizes for this matter if he wrenches text out of context to prove text his point you said NO,
David in Psalm 14 is not saying what you are saying ALL have sinned falls from the grace; this is not what Psalm 14 is talking about Kevin? If that is what Psalm 14 is saying, then the Psalm is nothing but a bunch of contractions, why do I say that because if you keep reading the Psalm we see that there is the righteous who are God’s people who the evil doers are devouring and we also see that God is in the company of His people and if David is saying what you’re saying then this company is a null set. So what was David predicament in Psalm 14? Who were David longtime enemies? And from whom David spent most his life hiding? Israelites right Kevin, so what is Paul telling the Judaizres? He is telling them what David is saying, Jews you too are under the Power of sin not only the Genitals and how do we know that? Read verse 9. Paul was not say what you are trying making out of this verse, he is saying Jews just like the Gentiles in need for Christ and His Grace for salvation the O.T. law keeping does not preserve them form the domain of sin and that was Paul arguments . He is by no mean or shape saying what you are saying otherwise the Judizers would be all over him and discredit him.
And for Mary needed a savior we believe what the Scripture says, she is a creature in need for saving grace and Mary received God Saving grace in the Womb of her mother on account and the merit of her Son the Second person of the Trinity. Can God do that? Absolutely, He sanctified John the baptized in the womb of Elizabeth
The Ark of the OT by no mean be more superior that the Ark of the NT if you understand typology.
Kevin,
Brother, do not bearing false witness because by your word you shall be justified and by your word you shall be condemn
God Bless
“But he left us the Spirit as the only means of participation in Him. ”
No, we have to worship in Spirit and TRUTH.
Jesus is TRUTH, the word of God, 2nd person of the Holy Trinity, Incarnate of the Virgin Mary who walked this earth 2000 years ago is TRUTH. Not having the virtue of truth in Him – he is literally is TRUTH. We are commanded to worship in Spirit and Truth.
How does one worship in Truth? I got the memo on in the Holy Spirit, but that is impossible without the TRUTH.
By the way, for all those who know (and it is true) that the bible is the Word of God (2nd person of the Holy Trinity) breathed into men by the Holy Spirit to be passed on for all time, and is Sola everything to them –
why is it that they are so careless throwing around their Lord in this way?
The Word of God was first proclaimed (orally), then written, then printed, and now electronically transmitted. At each of the junctures, the Church has been needed to guard and protect the Word of God. Anytime this is changed, there is heresy.
If the printing press wouldn’t have been invented, would Luther have been able to chane the Word?
Debbie,
I dont follow.
Yes, Jesus is the Word, and the Bible is God’s word written. Further discussion should be centered around chapter 1 of the Westminster Confession of faith.
Let me know how I can help.
Peace to you on your journey.
Wassan, You see its hard to talk to Catholics because they need a few seminary classes. Did you really tell me that 2 year old babies don’t sin and that mentally retarded people don’t sin. Do you live in Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory where Gene Wilder sings Pure imagination. Romans 3 there are none righteous, none who seek for God, none who understands. You guys don’t get it, Paul excludes all law keeping and works form justifying anyone. David kept the law, David had love, but Paul says David was COUNTED righteous by faith, APART form law. Mary was saved just like me by faith. And she is a saint just like me. And we are saints , not because we are inherently righteous but because He bore the penalty of our law breaking removed the enmity between us and God. Mary is no more righteous than me or ant other believer. All who trust in Christ are saints. Just read the opening of 1 Corinthians. He calls that rag tag group saints and he calls them sanctified Aorist past participle. Amazing. Faith is the only thing that can accept and embrace Christ and bring him to the heart of man. Thats why it justifies because of who it embraces. And thats why John says by our faith we have overcome the world. And God says without true saving faith, it is impossible to please Him. Love as important as it is, is never ever mentioned in justification. Justification is past tense and by faith alone. Reformed have never said that true faith does not produce love. It does.
Kevine,
How can a 2 years old sin?
And are you telling me you don’t seek God and you don’t do good?
What was psalm 14 all about?
God bless
My two year old sins. Let me tell you.
Andrew
Does your 2 year old deserve hell if God forbit he would be die today?
Yes. Did I get it right? Your thoughts, Wassan?
Test
As do I, Wassan.
You do know I am reformed, right?
To God be all glory and praise.
Thanks be to Him for the work of Christ. No hope without it.
Grace and peace.
” Why is it that they are so careless throwing around their Lord in this way.” This might be the best question ever posed by you, and i mean that sincerely. Because men are sinners and imperfect including those guys in red robes and the one in the big hat. You make a great point. Men have failed miserably at interpretation. Thats why the Reformers were returned us to the Scripture as being the infallible Word that established the church and rescued us from those who had corrupted it so bad it was unnoticeable. Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world. But when the state took over ( Constantinople) the gold went up in the church and the grace went out. Paganism came in and the gospel went out. Philosophy came in and faith went out. The (W)word is the only thing we have that we can trust. Men are flawed.
Ask Debbie how a two year old can sin, she has had a few of them. My neighbor’s 2 year old the other day stood the other neighbors wallet from his house. Couldn’t find it for 3 weeks. Did you really ask me how can a 2 year old sin?
Yes,
I asked you since it is your believe says a2 year old babies can commit personal sin
All sin no exception that was you saying that not Debbie
And can you tell me is praying to God is good? do you pray to Him ?
Kevin, Its not because its my belief, the bible says 2 year olds like anyone is corrupt. The Scripture says the heart of a man is evil and desperately wicked. If you want to understand what a Christian deals with in his life, read Romans 7. You won’t find a real view of sin in Roman catholicism, they believe baptism washes away original sin and they are now good with just a little booboo called concupiscence. Again Romans 7 Paul explains with his mind he serves God but in his body he sees a different war going on. It is clear to me the Romans 7 man is a mature Christian.
How a 2 year old baby can has a deceiving heart? You are reading your theology back into the bible the man in Roman 7 has a war between his fleshly desire and his willing to do the law so I ask you again how can a 2 years old babies be culpable?
Jesus said let the children come to me for theris is the kingdom of God and this is exactly the opposite of what are you saying
Again I ask
Does God’s elect do good and seek God?
Adam is our federal head.
Read the wesminster confession, friend.
Grace and peace.
Mortal sin requires grievous matter, sufficient reflection and full consent of the will. I don’t know many babies who can do that. ( I I wonder how many teenagers these days can do that. )
Anyway, Kevin, what happens to babies when they die? Do they go to hell? They haven’t made an act of Faith yet. You deny Baptismal regeneration so that won’t save them by your criteria. How do they overcome Original sin?
Wassan, I like your 11:20 posting.
Jim, I believe babies go to be with the Lord when they die. The scripture as well as Jesus himself indicate that anyone under the age of accountability are accepted in the arms of God. Please don’t ask me at what age that changes because I’m not God. Im Reformed but do not hold to infant baptism, although many of my Reformed friends do, and thats ok with me because they don’t see it as the cause of regeneration. The scripture clearly teaches faith comes thru hearing the word of God. Not the faith of Aunt Sussie when i was a baby. I think the RC takes away in almighty way from the Gospel with infant baptism. Paul unequivocally says as well as Peter and James faith thru hearing the word is how the Spirit brings someone to salvation. Galatians 3: 1-6 basically faith is the sphere of all of salvation. Ephesians tells us our works are a result of saving faith and justification not the cause thereof. It says they were prepared for us that we might walk in them. True believers obey the law and produce good works. But we are under gospel and not under any law for salvation. Calvin had rightly identified Rome teaching Jesus was a kinder, gentler Moses with a softer law. As if loving God with all your heart and neighbor as ourself was an easy task. What Catholic apologist refuse to understand is the Law is natural, it brings the knowledge of sin, death, and wrath, it was never meant to save. Paul said it was given for transgressions, to drive us to gospel. God’s law is holy and requires perfect obedience. And when we look at that we see how far short we fall and run to the gospel in faith. Only Christ’s merits can meet the RROTL. Galatians 3:10 Paul says cursed is anyone who does not abide in all things of the law. The Holy Spirit adds the word “all” to the verse in Deut. so there is saying like Rome likes to say it meant ceremonial law or dietary law. Paul’s argument throughout is we cannot be justified by anything in ourselves. Rome has a false gospel and those who follow it will not be saved. K
kevin, How can babies go to be with the Lord if they have corrupt natures?
Kevin
You are contradicting you earlier statement All fall from the grace of God and you told me that babies fall into the category of Roman 7
Now you say that these babies whom according to your interpretation to Paull’s All is fallen form God’s grace what dose it mean fallen from God’s grace ? Perhaps they don’t have God’s grace and yet they make it to heaven do you understand what are to saying ? God’s grace is not needed or necessary for a subcategory of human beings , babies and add infants to this category
Kevin if you ask me this is Pelagian if you follow Augustine . Can human begin make it to haven without grace?
Post fall, no one can make it to heaven without God’s grace. But you and I have a different definition of god’s grace. The biblical definition is unmerited favor towards sinners. So babies are saved thru God’s grace. But since they are incapable of faith, their plight is in the hands of God. And in Psalms and Jesus teach that children are under God’s grace. However there is an agar when they are accountable. But only God knows that. Nothing Pelagian here.
“Since He is outside of space and time, why do we not yet see all things put under him as they certainly are in eternity?”
Tim, many saints have. The closer we get to “union” with our Lord, the earth begins to fade away. Standard Christian Mysticism.
“Just so, we do not see “once” as ever new. Jesus’ once for all sacrifice took place in time. It does not take place continually outside of space and time.”
Tim, you are stating this as if you know exactly what Jesus Christ is doing in heaven. I should have said “once” mean eternal. As if you know without a doubt how the Holy Trinity works, and why Christ had to ascend into heaven before the Holy Spirit could be POURED out upon us. How do you think all these things happen – I can assure you that our human minds can’t conceive of the how. St. Thomas saw our Lord’s wounds and put his hands in them. Did Jesus ascend to Heaven with these wounds? He is our eternal High Priest …… how is he taking care of our sins today when he died in history? Now don’t get me wrong – He is definitley taking care of our sins, it is all about His Precious Blood. His sacrificial death on the cross was made once on earth. He is eternal and the merits of his sacrifice are eternal. How do we wash our robes in this Precious Blood? How is His Blood made available to us. Is it in a big cistern in Heaven? Highly unlikely.
He is priest, prophet and king. All at the same time. Three in one and one in three. Kind of gets under your skin and it may take eternity in heaven to understand, praise and adore the Almighty Godhead!
Institution of the Eucharist was paramount to living within His body. He is the Bread of Life come down from Heaven (must mean He was the Bread of Life before He came down from Heaven).
Any mature Christian should want to really begin to meditate on the (behind the scenes) sacrifice that enables us to have eternal life. Please see my example of the mother who cooks for ten hours just so her children can enjoy.
Again, not crucial to salvation, but as a growing child of the Father, it is our duty and destiny. Just like your children will do for you one day.
Hi, Debbie,
I appreciate your thoughts, as always. In response to my question, “Since He is outside of space and time, why do we not yet see all things put under him as they certainly are in eternity?”, you wrote
Christian mysticism is an area that I believe is very dangerous. I am to search the Scriptures for the Truth. The author of Hebrews says we do not yet see all things under His feet, but you respond that many mystics have. I don’t receive the words of mystics as authentic revelation, and I have read of many mystics who contradict the word of God. I have to go with Hebrews here, and not with a mystic’s view of heaven.
I certainly don’t meant to suggest I have special knowledge of Jesus’ activity, apart from what we call special revelation, the written Word. I only mean to convey to you that His Word says something, and I believe it to be true. I simply cannot allow a mystic to overturn that, for we are warned of a “dreamer of dreams, [who] thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in” (Deuteronomy 13:5).
I believe that the mysticism of Rome is indeed what is prohibited to me, so I cannot set aside the word of truth for the mystical revelations of a dreamer.
In context, Hebrews says we are not outside of space and time, and therefore it is not our prerogative to excuse ourselves from the space-time continuum in order to interpret a once for all sacrifice as continuous. That’s all I’m saying.
Thanks so much for your participation here.
Tim
Jim, by God’s grace. unmerited favor.
” Tim you say this as if you know exactly what christ is doing in heaven” Read the book of Hebrews. He is continues to intercede for us. Hebrews 9:23-24. Hebrews 7:27, 8:1-13.
Tim,
I hope I’m not too late to this discussion. With over 70 comments, threads tend to go off the rails by then.
First, I’m not convinced you actually exegeted Matt 12:36-37, because you seemed more to talk around it. Jesus is speaking of a justification/condemnation that will take place at the end on judgment day, based on ‘every idle word’ we speak. This isn’t a justification that takes place the moment you believe. So right there is a problem for Protestant theology, for a forensic justification is taking place in the future on judgement day.
Second, turning ‘every idle word spoken’ into a synonym for ‘expressing belief through words’ doesn’t seem to be an issue provided this be understood broadly as ‘expressing belief through good deeds’, as Jonah 3:5 example uses fasting and sackcloth (you even rightly quoted Jonah 3:10). But, again, how does this help the Protestant understanding of justification, because this is still the Christian’s good works being judged on judgment day unto either justification or condemnation.
If you’re going to say that “every idle word” is neither synonymous with faith or with good works, then I feel you’ve created a made-up third category that is simply impossible since there’s only a faith-or-works dichotomy.
Now I understand why Protestants quote Romans 10:9-10, but as I see it, it directly contradicts Sola Fide by assigning two things, believing and confessing, to salvation, rather than faith alone. I suppose you can say faith alone means ‘believing and confessing’ alone, but I’m sure you see the problem with that kind of wording. It’s assigning to salvation more than the righteousness of Christ, and that’s impossible in Protestantism. And in texts like John 12:42, it shows that it’s possible to believe without confessing, which is one more problem with your argument.
Sola fide, to me, is indeed what divides us (I know there’s other’s, but that’s the biggee):
I appreciate those who critique us. It helps us improve.
Do keep at it, Nick. I appreciate people pointing out my faults, personally, becasue I know I’m still working on several angles. That’s just me.
Peace.
And since I brought it up, here’s you March 9, 2013.
Keep trying to get people like me to renounce our vows. I like seeing how you go about it.
Hi, Nick,
No, you’re not too late. Thanks for your comment (and your patience). My concern for Stellman’s exegesis is that it ignores the two examples of judgment day that Jesus provides as illustrations in His conversation in Matthew 12. It means something if our words will justify or condemn us, and the words Jesus provides as examples are the expressed faith of the Ninevites and the expressed faith of the Queen of Sheba in contrast with the expressed unbelief of the Pharisees. Belief/unbelief is what is in mind here because the Scriptures were fulfilled, “In Him shall the Gentiles trust” (Matthew 12:21). Note that the Gentiles trusted in Him, and the Pharisees did not. When Jesus returns to His own in Matthew 13, “he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief” (v. 58).
There is of course much to discuss, but it does not appear to me to violate the context of Matthew 12 to say that the issue is believing or not believing—and believing is expressed in our words, as the two examples of judgment day show. Thus, when you write, “this is still the Christian’s good works being judged on judgment day,” I only respond that it is not works He has in mind, for there were plenty of works to point to, but He does not point to them. Rather, He is plainly contrasting belief and unbelief.
Thanks for your comment and your participation here.
Tim
Tim,
I didn’t realize how new your blog was, only two months old. From what I can see, you haven’t addressed Romans 4 in any of your posts, so I’m super excited for you to do so. Romans 4 confirmed me in my Catholicism and I’ve written tons about Romans 4. So when you’re done with the Romans 2 series, if you need ideas for new blog posts, please do some on Romans 4.
Never too late, “Catholic Nick.”
I still look up the ol’ discussion you and I had on WCF chapter one last year in Jason’s cybernetic space.
We’re not going anywhere, and neither are you with you typical hobby horses. Welcome to a reformed blog, enjoy your stay.
Peace.
Andrew,
I’m not sure what you’re beef is with me. If we’ve interacted in the past, I don’t remember because I’ve had so many discussions with people I cannot always remember who I spoke with or what was said.
Feel free to interact specifically with anything I’ve said, especially the crucial issues of Active Obedience, Imputation (logizomai), Romans 4, and Penal Substitution that I’ve discussed numerous times on my blog and elsewhere, all straight from the Bible.
And before you brush me off by saying “we’re not going anywhere,” I’ll first have to see where you’ve actually faced the Biblical facts on what I’ve had to say on those issues. Until then, I just have to assume there’s more studying you need to do on your end. The thing that fascinates me about Tim’s blog is that I’ve never come across a Calvinist making the claims he does, and I honestly don’t see how he can remain Calvinist much longer if he continues down that path.
Hi Nick,
First off, I’ve no beef with you. I’ve seen your name in the same blogs I comment on/lurk in. Anyway, thanks for engaging me here.
So yeah – I’m passionate about reformed theology. Been studying it for 12+ years now since finding out about it in my late teens.
As for Justification, are you familiar with the work of J.V. Fesko? He’s a scholar, I am not. I have his book Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine, by my side here. You should see the 30+ refereneces or so he deals with verses in Romans 4. There’s a lot we could discuss. Or Turretin if you prefer.
Let me know how you want to do this. It’s straying from Tim’s blog post here, but let’s keep it civil and to the point, and maybe he’ll let us keep at it. He’s been very gracious thus far.
Only as you feel led. You and I have e-mailed some, we discussed the fact that I subscribe to the confession as a deacon in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and you took some reservation about what it means to subscribe. But I won’t bring up personal correspondence here any more.
Let me know where you want to start. This debate is old, but I guess folks like us enjoy discussing and sharpening the tools in our toolbox.
Grace and peace,
Andrew
Andrew,
I do have own Fesko’s Justification book (as well as The Law Is Not of Faith) and I have read both books and highlighted them. I also own Turretin’s Institutes but have only read through a few sections.
Regarding Fesko’s Justification, I felt it was way too long and didn’t cover the important topics. It wasn’t really written as an apologist text, so there ended up being a lot of preaching to the choir. The section on Roman Catholicism was too short but I do remember he tried to be fair. I also recall that he mentioned Logizomai only once, in a single sentence, without giving it the attention it required. That’s a serious flaw.
I’m fine with discussing those topics either on my blog, your blog, Tim’s blog (if he writes about them), or by email. I’m ready to start any time, just pick the topic: Penal Substitution, Active Obedience, Imputation. Those are what the Catholic-Protestant salvation debate are really about.
Nick, that’s great you own all that. We need to get into those unless we feel led, then. That helps me understand your interest level and where you are at. Thanks!
If I get to pick, I would definately choose active obedience.
You said something in the 2012 CTC thread saying (I think it’s comment 222) about active obedience meaning God is “saving face.” I never really understood what you meant. I tried to be irenic in a response to you in that thread (see above link).
I’ve read Machen to even ease off the Active/Passive distinction of Christ’s work, although ultimately I believe he found it helpful, as I did.
Ultimately, an understanding of sanctification being rooted in justification is so helpful for me, I don’t know where to begin. To bring up Fesko again, his writing has helped me here. But it’s with the protestant’s insistence on their correct doctrine of justification that gives me a lot of thankfulness that God saw fit to have me born a protestant, and here I happily remain.
Does any of that spark an interest? I’m here to chat, and be helpful if I can, friend.
Peace.
*we need NOT get into all that (is what I meant)
When I say Machen backed off of Active/Passive, this is what I meant:
Now your turn. Thoughts?
By the way, it seems you want to pin all of protestantism on Logizomai, and I guess say we’re all washed up and we should join your church.
I think all I need to justify (pun intended) our religion is show your church was extremely corrupt, leading Luther to do what he did, which didn’t get resolved until the Peace of Westpahlia (over 130 years after the start of the reformation). Therefore, we exist separate today, in divided Xiandom, but we must find a way forward. Your analyzing one word, doing a $100 challenge, etc, smacks of something, I’m not sure what. But that’s me.
Some further thoughts, only if interested. I’ve multiple comments there.
Andrew,
Yes, that does spark an interest, though I would like to emphasize early on that I approach this from an exegetical angle rather than what some theologian says.
First I would ask what you think are the top 3 passages that teach Active Obedience, i.e. which passages clearly teach Jesus kept the law in our place and had this perfect obedience transferred to our account as the basis for our being justified?
Second, I’ll give the top three passages that I believe plainly contradict Active Obedience: Jeremiah 31:31-34; Romans 4:6-8; Galatians 2:21.
I’ll look those up, but I only need one:
2 Cor 5:21
Ultimately, your approach of “let’s not talk of what theologians think” is a non-starter. I mean, we can invoke Augustine, right?
We have church soon, so I’ll be away. I’ll be back later.
Thanks for the interaction.
Nick,
Thank you for the suggestion.
Kind regards,
Tim
I concur 100% with that last statement.
Praise be to God!
The only thing I bring up is no one knows or can fathom exactly HOW this is done.
Go to Hebrews 7:22-the end of chapter 8. It explains everything in regards to all your questions. The word for Priest Heirus is mentioned 400 times in the OT. It never appears in the NT. Those verses explain how the earthly Priesthood is done away with because we have the perfect high Priest who applies the his sacrifice continually on our behalf. He continually intercedes on our behalf. Like eric says His one time sacrifice “at the consummation of the ages” is a blanket across History. The veil has been ripped away and thru the spirit we are present with him in heaven hidden in him. When we are buried with Him Paul says we are clothed with Christ, this is why we are just. Not because we are inherently righteous, but he declares us so based on the life and death of Christ. He just does not count our sins against us, and therefore Paul can tell us we are reconciled past tense and are friends of God. We are now free to obey the law, because we have been freed from its penalty. Romans 8;1, 5:1. And where we fail in our holiness and righteous walk, Christ’s righteousness covers us. For me the best example of this is when Adam and Eve had sinned and were naked and afraid and guilty, it is God who comes to the and kills an animal and clothes them without them doing anything. This is the first view of the gospel. Faith. Our works are the evidence of our faith.
Kevin, You say, ” He continually intercedes on our behalf.”
Why? You said it was all done on Calvary and all sins, past, present and future are taken care of.
Kevin, yes indeed, Christ lives to make intercession for us daily. This is why we celebrate Mass somewhere, every minute of the day, from the East to the West, the Nations ( we gentiles ) offer the Clean Oblation. Go read Malachi.
Kevin,
I really incourage you to read this artical
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/infant-baptism
God Bless
Kevin, how Grace applyied to those biabies you did not tell us anyway hope you have time to read the above link
And as for grace unmireted we believe that and this is evident in baptizing infants what an infact could’ve brought to deserve the grace he /she recives in baptism?
Definatliy our understanting to grace is diffrent , grace is not Just God’s subjective disposition to show favor to those who have faith. Grace in the Catholic version affirms all of that, your position is half truth , it is true of all it affirms but false in what it denies . To Catholics, grace actually not just an attitude but it is nothing less than God’s own life imparted, the life of God himself transmitted to us (poured in our hearts) through the Holy Spirit, that is grace . Now that wouldn’t be given unless there was a kind of benevolent favor within the disposition of God. And when we are given that gift of himself , we can be assured that we can do what otherwise we couldn’t do because God is calling us just as Saint Paul is telling us in Romans 5:2-5 to something is supernatural not natural manely Hope faith and Charity
In Romans2:4. Before St. Paul talks about the work we must do in order to be saved in Romans chapter 2 he says “ do you not know that is God’s kindness that leads you to repentance” Good kindness or goodness is a synonym for God’s grace .
God Bless
Grace is a “Charis” a quality a,k,a, “dunemis” from which we get DYNAMITE. When we have grace we are empowered to do supernaturally good works.
Of course, grace is God’s attitude towards us. But His attitude, like His word, does what it says.
To everyone, I have left a quote on creed code cult by John Calvin that to me really sums up the Christianity up. It is amazing and hope all will read it. Thx Kevin.
I read it. I hope all go and read my comment.
It’s Luther vs. Bellarmine all over again, all day every day. Makes MMA look boring.
You stellmanites crack me up (insert emoticon).
Later.
Wassan, ” grace is not just an attitude but its nothing less than God’s life imparted, the life of God himself transmitted to us thru the Holy Spirit.” “Kind of benevolent favor” Well lets start by saying God’s grace is a gift and it isn’t kind of benevolence, it is overflowing benevolence. ” but if you walk by the Spirit you are not under the Law” Galatians 5:18. We are under Gospel by faith, not law. The Law drives us to Christ, Gospel. Against the law we see our utter bankruptcy and run to the gospel in faith where we receive forgiveness and mercy. Please read Timothy here on Romans 2, because if you misinterpret it you won’t find heaven. There is no work that we must do to earn salvation. Romans 4:5 says it is offered to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, apart form any works. Wassan Rome conflates 2 covenants. Commands function in a Law covenant( Mosaic) as the basis for blessing and cure, the swearers perfect persona,l perpetual ,obedience is the ground. In the covenant of Grace ( NC) commands function as reasonable service that we offer in view of God’s mercies. It is by faith alone in Christ alone we apprehend righteousness, and the the blessings of the promise, not thru earning increases in grace thru a sacramental system. There is no institution like the Roman Catholic church in Scripture with a sacramental system of attaining grace. In fact the word Priest is not even mentioned in the NT. Hebrews says the old covenant faded away. Chapters 7 and 8. Christ is Priest forever of a better covenant. Hebrews 9:24 says He is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near in faith.
Kevin, You tried to trick Wassan with, “. The Law drives us to Christ, Gospel. Against the law we see our utter bankruptcy and run to the gospel in faith where we receive forgiveness …”
I like how St. Augustine said it; “The law commands the impossible. We are driven to prayer. We ask God for help and He gives us the grace to do the impossible.”
You then get even wilder in your assertion with, “In fact the word Priest is not even mentioned in the NT. ”
The reality of priest is sure there. The Elders do priestly things like go to the sick, lay hands on them and pray over them and their sins are forgiven.
They preside at the Eucharist and bind and lose sins.
Anyone who tries to usurp priestly functions is guilty of the sin of Kore ( Jude ). What was the specific sin of Kore? Offering incense, ( which was a sacrifice, by the way ). In Revelation, in the heavenly liturgy, the 24 Elders offer incense.
Kevin, there is a distinct difference between presbyters/episcopoi vs the lay people. Not everyone was called to preach, forgive sins, lead, etc. etc.
Jim, Even though there have been claims that men have kept the law perfectly, it is a fallacy. The law requires perfection. No one has ever achieved it accept one. Paul said He would mot have known sin if it weren’t for the Law. The Law shows us our utter bankruptcy and our need for Christ. We see that our attempt to keep it fails miserably sometimes and we rein to the gospel were we find mercy. This does not mean that we don’t obey the law. But we can never be justified by it. The Roman thought that Jesus is a kindler gentler Moses with a simpler softer law. That with loving surrender and loving God and neighbor we could achieve heaven. Heaven is for the poor sinner who looks at the law, realizes they can’t keep it, and runs to christ in faith.
Kevin, “This does not mean that we don’t obey the law. But we can never be justified by it.”
Of course we can’t be justified by the Mosaic Law because its rites did not contain grace. ( The were mere occasions of grace).
Andrew sent me to Gresham Machen’s book on the virgin birth. In it he mentioned Justin and Trypho. Upon clicking on that, I read a good explanation of the powerlessness of the Law.
The Mosaic Law was national therefore it could not save the gentiles. Because it couldn’t save the gentiles, it showed that it really couldn’t save the Jews either.
Your problem Kevin, is that you see the Law of Christ and His Church as the same as that of Moses.
Kevin, The Law made provisions for imperfection. That is why the could offer sacrifices for sin.
You know Wassan you summed it up well for all our Protestant Brethren – “half truth ”
They have much truth and love our Lord, they just don’t posses the fullness.
I have used this illustration before,
it is kind of like reading a beautiful book about Italy, with maps pictures, recipes, diaries etc…..
it is quite another thing to live in Italy for a year working, playing, eating, praying and drinking Italian Wine from the vineyard.
Both experiences give you truth about Italy …..
disclosure; no particular reason that I used Italy for an example, I should have used Hawaii. I just love Italy and have so many found memories.
What you don’t understand is we are eating, drinking, praying at the vineyard in heaven seated with Him in the Spirit. Your Catholic system of fullness will keep you out of heaven from this joy and peace that we possess because its based on works of the sacraments. Boy that should be real fulness get you rear end burned in Purgatory. Your experience is earthly, natural, Physical since He is an eternal victim for you strapped to an altar. Ours is Spiritual, heavenly, safe, secure and peaceful. Sitting in heaven is so much better than eating in Italy.
“What you don’t understand is we are eating, drinking, praying at the vineyard in heaven seated with Him in the Spirit. ”
Yeah, that is after you die,
I mean right now, March 22, 2014. That is what I was doing today for about an hour.
Debbie and Jim
Thanks for your kind words, I will have to stay away for some times for I’m tide up with project to finish study to attend. I Thank the host of this blog, Tim for allowing us share our faith with our brothers and sisters in Christ
Andrew and Kevin, thanks for the dialoge
forgive my typo and grammer my only excuse is English is my second language, trust me it is getting better 🙂 , thank be to God.
may the Lord keeps us in His Love and mercy and may He give us His grace to do His will
Thank you all
God Bless
Take care, Wassan. Be warm and filled.
Tim, a side comment, if I may:
Our words follow us, out here, in the blogs.
It’s amazing to see over time who these people are.
Myself included.
Take care.
No i mean right now. We are seated in heaven with Him, and its awesome. The Spirit has brought us right into the throne room. He is Risen. You still have him strapped to the altar and the cross as an eternal victim. Vey earthy. Sad Religion.
Ephesians 2:5 ‘ Even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together wit Christ ( by grace you have been saved), and RAISED us up with Him and SEATED us with Him in the heavenly places. Protestants serve a living God as we are seated with Him in heaven saved, we sing the Amen. Its awesome to serve and commune in heaven with the God who has risen and will never die again Revelations 1:17. And the reverse it is sad to serve God in an unacceptable way, continuing to put Him to death, and never accomplishing salvation, whose hope is Purgatory. Boy thats good news. Walk into a Catholic service. Its like a funeral. While your staring at the bread, we are fellowshipping with him in heaven.
“Walk into a Catholic service. Its like a funeral. While your staring at the bread, we are fellowshipping with him in heaven.”
Kevin, Catholics are having fellowship with the God that pitches His tent in our midst. Take a gander.
Kevin, be careful.
Don’t be triumphalist.
We must find a way forward. Somehow..
Andrew, ” the righteous shall live by faith”. Paul says rejoice in the Lord always. in fact he repeats it, and again i say rejoice. Im listening to Paul. Doesn’t the scripture say we are more than conquerers. If your asking me do I take my salvation for granted, no I’m working it out with fear and trembling, knowing it is God who is at work in me. But the usual Catholic baloney, which I’m refuting is the we have something you don’t have attitude. Its what the Priest tells them to say to their Protestant friends. When actually I apply my what ever Rome tells you believe the opposite rule. So actually we have something they don’t have. Salvation and assurance.
” But the usual Catholic baloney, which I’m refuting…”
Kevin “Full o’Baloney” Falloni,
I ain’t buying your claim that you aren’t coming from a personal place. Your venom sure looks pathological. I don’t know any Italians without some Catholicism in the family. What happened? Did your father refuse to take you to the circus or did a girlfriend dump you and decide to become a nun? C’m Kev. Get it out. Catharsis is good for the soul.
PS If this comment doesn’t seem like serious apologetics, maybe it’s because your non-stop ranting doesn’t either.
I bet Protestants as well as Catholics hate to see your name pop up on a site. All serious dialogue comes to a screeching halt and you bogart the blog from then on out.
Andrew, Do you believe you are lacking something that a romanist has at the sacrament ex opere operato? Because if you do, swim the Tiber. Ephesians tells me I have all things pertaining to life and godliness? Most of all assurance. Are we not already raised up with Him and seated in the heavenly places? Thats what Ephesians says. The already/ not yet.
Andrew, Here is what Calvin said about the necessity of the Doctrine of election ” To deliver us from fear and make us invincible in the dangers and battles of this life, he promises safety to all whom the Father has taken into his keeping, John 10: 28-29.All those who do not know they are God’s special people must be miserable and in constant fear.” I know you like to drop in off the golf course into the conversation. And actually I can understand since I have caddied for a PGA golfer a fees times and love to play. But I’m not going to let a Romanist tell us we lack something they have when its actually the other way around. WE, by the Spirit, commune as if we are seated in heaven. Rome can’t produce this.
Let them talk, and don’t let what they say get to you.
I’m leaving this thread, but encourage you to listen to these interlocutors and understand them. It’s a virtue of Calvinism to exercise restraint.
Proceed as you are led, brother.
Jm bob, Don’t ask an Italian if he ever got dumped by a girl. It is an impossibility. You live in denial, and it ain’t a river in Egypt. Someones hate of RC doctrine can’t have anything to do with Rome but a personal thing. Not there bro. My parents to me to the circus. we were attaching your family in the clown uniforms Ha Ha! God bless you and have a great day He is Risen! Oh wait I forgot for you I should have said he isn’t risen. Let him off the altar and cross Jim, please, he is in heaven.
Andrew,
I guess we have to move this down to the bottom of the thread because it wont let me “Reply” directly under comments.
I’ll wait until you come up with your other two Active Obedience texts before I respond to your single greatest proof text for Active Obedience (btw 2 Corinthians 5:21 was going to be on my list, but it would have been 4th after Gal 2:21).
I don’t mind if theologians are quoted who are exegeting a specific verse, but what I’m trying to avoid is merely an appeal to authority and long quotes simply about what a given theologian thinks. I’ve read numerous “defenses” of Active Obedience by Reformed scholars that contain virtually no Scripture and instead are full of mere assertions.
Sticking only with the Bible is the easiest and cleanest approach.
But Nick, I see this ending where it always does. Me with WCF chapter 1, you with your church says to believe her when she says she is infallible.
What difference is it if I give you 100 verses (someone has done that I’m sure) to support my position. If your pope tells you I’m wrong, that’s just the way it is.
Presbyism is grand, our form of government is something we are proud of. I don’t need to convert you, in order to say you can be saved, but you must convert me (b/c your under stranding of EENS).
What’s the 100 dollar challenge about anyway? If I win, how will we know? Will your pope adjudicate, or my moderator or GA?
I’ll read closer later..
Andrew,
I *completely* understand your concern. I assure you that this wont end up in a ‘you standing by the Bible and me standing by the Church’ stalemate. I’ve refined my arguments over the years so that they’re 100% exegetical only. This is all about the “plain English” of the Biblical text. Let’s see who is really following the Bible and who’s adding to it is my apologetics approach and I’ve stuck by it on my blog.
How about this. You win, Nick. Your exegesis and refinement surpasses mine.
There, we can save each other that rigamarole.
Only God knows who is right, between the planet’s most refined prot and most refined cath.
Isaiah 55:8-9 stuff,right?
So what’s the right way forward?
Andrew,
You’ve got me completely baffled. Are you wanting to compare my top three verses against Active Obedience against your top three verses in favor of Active Obedience? It seems like a simple request. I’ve given you my three and am waiting two more from you.
If you’re insinuating that I’m supposed to crumble and run to my man-made traditions the moment you pull out your Bible, I consider that an insult, even if unintentional. I’m being upfront here. Your 3 verses against my 3 verses.
Nick, you like games, I get it.
If you were so sure of yourself, why only a $100 payout? You should increase the dollar amount. $100 is what you stake this position on?
I’m not trying to be insulting. You a cath come to a prot blog. I’m actually trying to help.
Peace.
I’ve got to head out now, but you’re clearly misunderstanding the $100 dollar thing. It’s NOT a challenge for Protestants. I did NOT promise to pay ANY Protestant any amount of money. It’s strictly for other Catholic bloggers who I believe should be writing articles about Logizomai to help spread the word.
Ok. I’ve given you two verses. I only add Deut 29:29.
Thanks for correcting me, friend.
Ciao.
Definitely,if you find a problem in Prot theology, let our bloggers know too.
Nick, I came out of pelagianism (raised) into Calvinism.
There exists no reason for me to join your communion.
But we can work to figure out a way forward, despite our differences.
Grace and peace.
Nick, if you want to talk general cath/prot divide stuff, consider my comment above. Why does your church say I need to come into communion with her to be saved?
I believe the OPC to be a branch of the true church of Jesus Christ. Therefore, when Catholics tell me to join their church, that’s just silly to me.
Do you think I should join the RCC? Only answer as you feel led, I’m not in any way troubled. But I am curious for your position here.
Peace.
Side Note: I wont be near a computer again until later tonight or tomorrow, so no rush on either end.
Let’s wait for Tim to blog on Romans 4, or we can visit each other’s blogs.
Until next time, Nick. Do take care.
Andrew,
I’m not sure what your three verses are. So far I’ve seen you offer 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Deuteronomy 29:29. What’s the third?
To get some exegesis going, I’ll talk about why I gave my three verses and what I see in your verses regarding the question of Imputed Active Obedience (IAO).
(1) My first verse was Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is a famous prophecy about God going to institute a New Covenant, the Christian covenant. In this description, we are told the two characteristics of being in the New Covenant: God writing His Law on our heart and forgiving our sins. This description does not include any reference to Active Obedience, and in fact IAO doesn’t fit with the fact God is putting his law in our heart so that we can fulfill the law ourselves.
(2) My second verse was Romans 4:6-8, in which Paul is explaining what it means to “reckon righteousness.” In verses 4:3-5 Paul brings up the issue of “reckoning righteousness,” which many Protestants have interpreted to mean IAO. In 4:6 Paul says “David ALSO speaks of reckoning righteousness,” which would logically mean David is going to be speaking of IAO in 4:7-8. But if you notice, 4:7-8 doesn’t mention “righteousness” at all, but rather “sins forgiven” and “not imputing sin.” What this means is that for Paul, justification was about forgiveness, not Imputing Active Obedience, which is why Paul equates “reckoning righteousness” with “sins forgiven.”
(3) My third verse was Galatians 2:21, which says: “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.” Notice that Paul is contrasting righteousness through the law versus righteousness through Christ’s death. The contrast is keeping the law versus Christ dying. If Paul believed in IAO he never would have said this, because IAO would mean righteousness does come through the law, and it is Christ who attains this ‘righteousness through the law’ for us by his AO. But for Paul, only Christ’s death is what matters, which is a glaring oversight in Apostolic teaching if IAO were true. The fact Paul assigned saving righteousness to Christ’s death is a direct contradiction to IAO.
There’s more where that came from, but those are my top three. I believe each of them is clear, each of them speaks to the issue of justification, and in each their exclusion (precluding) of IAO is obvious.
NOW onto your two verses. Here are my thoughts:
(1) Your first verse was 2 Corinthians 5:21. The verse says Jesus was “made sin for us” so that we become the Righteousness of God. The only work mentioned here “for us” was Jesus being “made sin,” which can only be talking about the Cross. This would indicate the Cross alone is all that was needed. And verse 5:19 would confirm this, since it explains how God was reconciling us: “by not counting their sins.” This confirms everything I’ve said already about forgiveness and new heart being the only criteria for entrance into the New Covenant. I don’t see any need or exegetical/contextual warrant for reading IAO into this passage. Maybe you want to suggest “knew no sin” refers to keeping the law on our behalf, but while I agree Jesus never sinned, it was only to make him a worthy sacrifice, which is why the “for us” is assigned to His Death. If “knew no sin” or “made sin” refers to IAO, you’re going to have to make a good case for that, because I don’t see it.
(2) Your second verse was Deuteronomy 29:29, “the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” I don’t see anything in this texts that mentions a substitute keeping the law in our place. The only mention is the Jews keeping the law. And as I mentioned in my Jeremiah 31:31-34 text, part of the New Covenant is being given a new heart to know and fulfill the law.
As soon as you post your third verse I’ll share my thoughts on it. For now, that’s where I stand. Of the two verses that you shared, I saw nothing in “plain English” from these texts saying Jesus kept the law in our place and imputed this to us as the grounds for our justification.
Nick, I only read your first couple sentences. Isaiah 55:8-9 was my other ref.
But the Isaiah and Deut citations are a bit straying from the doctrine of Justification. Theres some in Job 40 I want you to read, as well, and others.
I start my work week now, so I prolly wont have time until Saturday to engage meaningfuly. But I will read closely in my spare time, and pray about what you have written. I really appreciate you sharing your knowledge and opinions. To contact me more directly on other matters, my Twitter feed (see link on my name) is at yours or any reader’s disposals. Xtians place a high value on the pursuit of Truth. Hence, my motivating factor out here.
Thanks again,
Andrew
Nick, Romans 5:12-21 is what I would next direct your attention to, as regards Justification. The others (deut, isaiah) are more dealing with epistemology.
I argued for IAOC in summer 2012 with a fellow PCA guy, on his blog, and fleshed out my ideas.
My question for you would be, how, in your view, are we made right with God, if you dispense with my and the reformed view of Justification by faith? If you’ve answered already, my apologies. Sometimes, I need others to connect the dots, as regards theology.
With that, I’m signing off for a while. Sorry, I’m not trying to deceive, but rather, to show where I am at, friend.
Peace.
Andrew,
I’ll wait until you get done with work so you have time to read my response. I feel sort of cheated that you still haven’t given me your top three passages for Imputed Active Obedience, now retracting your prior verses and putting in Romans 5:12-21 as your second verse, with still no third verse.
You’re going to have to explain how Romans 5:12-21 necessitates IAO when you get the chance. Verse 5:19 does mention Christ’s “obedience” leading to our justification, but it’s not enough to assume this “obedience” refers to AO. The Bible uses “obedience” in reference to Christ in two other places, Philippians 2:8 and Hebrews 5:8, both talking about his “obedience unto death” on the Cross. In other words, it’s Passive Obedience that’s in view, and this is confirmed by the fact Romans 5:6-11 is plain (e.g. “justified by His blood”) that only the Cross is necessary.
As to your question of how we are made right with God, I gave the essence of the Catholic view in my last response where I addressed my top three verses and your 2 Cor 5:21 verse. Other than that, I feel it would be getting off the topic of IAO to discuss those other things.
Well, Nick, the “three verse game”was your idea. Not sure why I need to keep giving you my favorite verses.
Ultimately, your church declares I am anathema in the council of Trent. I am on record of publicly declaring my assent to subscribe to the WCF as a church officer.
It makes for interesting conversation, but I’ll be honest. In internet is such a poor medium for these weighty matters. I would enjoy keeping this discussion going and giving you my third favorite verse, but I am getting the sense we have exhausted each other out here on this blog. Maybe I am wrong.
You feel you have found a way to undermine protestant theology with your 100$ challenge. Nick, ultimately, my own personal experience was one where I learned the doctrines of Grace via John Calvin and his followers. He was raised a Roman Catholic, but took up the task of reforming a corrupt church, and for that, I am thankful. He didn’t live to see the work of those who came after him up to the peace of Westphalia, nor what had transpired since in Reformed Scholasticism.
I know I’m a dissapointment, but let’s talk on a other thread on the topic at hand. As stated, I concede what ever little kerfuffle you and I had, here, to you. Tim can chime in and clear up what he thinks I haven’t done ably already (sorry Tim!). But my time is up. Thanks for interacting. And I’ll see you around the blogs, friend.
Grace and peace.
Andrew,
My “three verse” idea comes from LOTS of experience of trying to get Protestants to have upfront and honest dialog with me without going on all kinds of tangents and confusing the issues. I know that the “three verse” approach is the best way to nail things down and get Protestants to show if they’re serious and capable of being challenged by a well-informed Catholic.
Honestly, it saddens me that I’ve had to beg and plead for you to present your top verses for such a crucial doctrine, because Christians are called to be upfront about presenting the facts to others (1 Tim 3:15). Going off about how my Church says anathema and this and that is simply unfair, not accurate, and most importantly dodging the question at hand: IAO.
I honestly don’t see how you don’t have time to interact with my exegesis considering the many long responses you’ve given here and elsewhere on the web.
Well, consider the book of Galatians. All of it.
Nick, my kids are ages 7 and younger. I hate to say it, but I really shouldnt be doing this. The comments I make to you have happened now over the course of almost two years. There’s no rush. Why don’t I commit to blogging on this matter. I know of your blog. Expect more from me, friend. I merely say there is a better time and place. We need not solve it right here right now.
You need to take me at my word about my time constrains. That’s all I ask.
Peace.
Leave me a comment here, if you want to talk, Nick. I invite you to, as my guest. This is my blog. You will notice something of a pattern (Galatians, Romans 5, 2 Cor 5).click and read that, and you will see. Leave me a comment :–
http://machenonfaith.com/2014/02/09/machen-on-justification-by-faith-alone/
Peace.
Whoops, Machen calls out Romans 8, not 5. Romans 8 is my favorite in all of Scrupture tho, especially vs. 32.
I’m done here.
Andrew,
I don’t mind if you have time constraints. I would just ask that you limit unnecessary commenting (to me) if you don’t have the time to make substantial comments. If you’re not going to address actual exegesis, then please hold off responding until you can. But to keep responding to me about tangential issues is really a waste of your time and mine.
Whenever I don’t have enough time to make a substantive response to someone, I simply post a sentence or two saying something to the effect “I’m busy now but will try to get back to this later.” and then I leave/monitor until I have sufficient time to make a response.
To me they had substance, but I accept your criticism.
Peace.
Re reading, awesome Tim!
I listened to your YouTube on this subject and it was excellent. This is very important to me personally for two reasons. I was first raised in a Seventh Day Adventist home until me early teen years and then I became a Roman Catholic through the influence of the foster home I was in. I tell be people I had works coming and going. When I got saved at age 25 I was truly thankful for the grace of God. The second reason is I am writing a PhD dissertation that refutes the belief of a future justification. I love Augustus Strong, “Justification is instantaneous, complete, and final from the moment of first believing.” Your notes are helpful in dealing with Matthew 12:37 which is one of the battleground verses that had arisen in the last couple of decades by people who should have been defending the gospel of grace through faith alone.
Thank you, Kenneth. It is remarkable to me how often Matt 12:35-37 is invoked to support future, final justification by works, when its context screams justification by initial faith, apart from works!