Some Questions About Souls
Mark Adkins
obvious enough, yet I do not recall them being raised,
much less addressed, in the Protestantism (Methodist,
Baptist/Evangelical) which I am familiar with. (Perhaps
I should state that I am personally an atheist.)
The Christian tradition seems universally agreed that
human beings possess souls. There may be variations
among different groups as to the exact details (e.g.,
at conception? at birth?), but accepting this as a
conversational premise begs and obvious question:
Are these souls pre-existing, in which the question
becomes, Where did they exist, and for how long, prior
to incarnation? ; or, are they newly created?
Since Christianity (and I'm addressing my comments to
Christians, or at least to individuals of Judeo-Christian
background)eschews reincarnation, the pre-existing
hypothesis would seem to imply a gathering place for
unborn souls; whereas the newly-created hypothesis
seems to imply that God takes a personal hand in matters
each time a human baby is born, a kind of celestial
envelope-stuffing operation, if you'll forgive the
analogy.
Also, what are the exact properties of souls, as
opposed to souls in bodies with human experiences?
----
[The Christian tradition generally doesn't accept preexisting souls. I
won't say no one has suggested it, but it's not the common
view. Because there's no really clear answer in Scripture or the
creeds, this is a matter on which people speculate. The most common
speculations are traducianism -- that the soul comes from the parents,
via a mechanism that isn't specified, and creationism -- that God
creates the soul at some point in each person's development. Catholic
and most Reformed theology tends to accept creationism, Lutherans and
the Eastern Church (?) traducianism. A search for traducianism in
Google will turn up a number of useful references.
--clh]
Mark Adkins
> [The Christian tradition generally doesn't accept preexisting souls. I
> won't say no one has suggested it, but it's not the common
> view. Because there's no really clear answer in Scripture or the
> creeds, this is a matter on which people speculate. The most common
> speculations are traducianism -- that the soul comes from the parents,
> via a mechanism that isn't specified, and creationism -- that God
> creates the soul at some point in each person's development. Catholic
> and most Reformed theology tends to accept creationism, Lutherans and
> the Eastern Church (?) traducianism. A search for traducianism in
> Google will turn up a number of useful references.
>
> --clh]
This leaves the question: what are the putative
properties of souls in and of themselves, as opposed
to the properties of incarnated souls. For example,
sexuality is often considered a carnal matter. But
couldn't an argument be made for "male" and "female"
human souls, as opposed to sex organs (which *are* a
carnal matter)? If a soul is going to be able to
enjoy carnal relations once incarnated, then those
abilities must exist in potentia in the soul, and
are only waiting to be "plugged into" the body.
Since it seems perverse (certainly within the
Judeo-Christian tradition as generally accepted)
to suggest that souls are "bi-sexual" (in the
sense of possessing proclivities in potentia
which can be realized regardless of the type
of body they are actuated in) the answer to
the question, for those who believe in such
things, would seem to be, yes, souls have a
"sex".
What about other abilities existing in potentia,
e.g., general sensory modes of sight, hearing,
touch, etc.?) These are mental experiences, or
if you prefer, spiritual experiences. A body
merely channels and conditions, providing the
"input/output" of earthly experience; but a body
without a soul is a dead thing. Therefore, if
there are souls, the abilities and proclivities
(to the extent that the latter pre-exist) must
exist in potentia as properties of the soul itself.
BHZellner
> that human beings possess souls.
A soul is simply a psyche, a "self." Perhaps it would be
better to say not that we possess souls, but that we
ARE souls. If my Greek doesn't fail, we now possess
bodies of flesh (soma sarkos) and some day we will
possess spiritual bodies (soma pneumatikos), but a
soul is what we ARE.
I like computer analogies. I have some FORTRAN code
nearly 40 years old. On modern computer hardware
it will run perhaps 10,000 times faster than on the
hardware of the 60's, but it will give the very same
answers.
Some day we will run on much better hardware, but
the soul - the self - is the same.
Ben
Cunneen
>becomes, Where did they exist, and for how long, prior
>to incarnation? ; or, are they newly created?
>
No, they are created. Souls are the "form" of the body; they have no other
prior existence before the body is created.
> whereas the newly-created hypothesis
>seems to imply that God takes a personal hand in matters
>each time a human baby is born, a kind of celestial
>envelope-stuffing operation, if you'll forgive the
>analogy.
Yes, we believe that He calls each of us into existence. Genesis says that we
are made "in the image and likeness" of God. The soul in a special way carries
that image and likeness.
>Also, what are the exact properties of souls, as
>opposed to souls in bodies with human experiences?
Normally the soul is associated with a body. That is the normal state for
humans. I think what you are asking is what is the state of the soul after
death? Obviously the body has died; if the soul did not have a "touch of the
divine", you'd expect it to die with the body. But that special "image and
likeness" character of the human soul gives it the special power to continue to
exist after the bodies death.
But the person is not complete without body and soul, and therefore we believe
that at the end of time our bodies will be resurrected and we will be restored
as body and soul, but with a "body" that is fitting for one who is in the
"image and likeness" of God.
Bob Crowley
> >
> > [The Christian tradition generally doesn't accept preexisting souls. I
> > won't say no one has suggested it, but it's not the common
> > view. Because there's no really clear answer in Scripture or the
>
> This leaves the question: what are the putative
> properties of souls in and of themselves, as opposed
> to the properties of incarnated souls. For example,
> sexuality is often considered a carnal matter. But
> couldn't an argument be made for "male" and "female"
> human souls, as opposed to sex organs (which *are* a
> carnal matter)? If a soul is going to be able to
> enjoy carnal relations once incarnated, then those
> abilities must exist in potentia in the soul, and
The plain fact of the matter is that we don't know and can only
speculate. I am inclined to believe God does "stuff the envelope" to
use your phrase, and in a sense puts a bit of Himself into it. He is
after all the original spirit. This begs the question as to sin,
rebellion etc, since the spiritual component must more or less come
directly from Him.
We are told however that "sin" or the tendency to rebel against Him is
endemic to the human race. So perhaps there is some immaterial
inheritance from the human parents as well. Christ for example had a
human mother, but a divine Father.
Now as for male / females souls, again we don't know, but since "male
and female" is such a significant component of the created order, then
by extrapolation there is going to be transcendent component of
"sexualityA" in the spiritual world.
I personally believe we will be given evidence of the soul when we
first learn to teleport material items. Obviously this is only an
opinion (backed up by a few rather odd spiritual experiences), but
when we try to teleport living things, we are going to find they
arrive stone dead, since we will be able to quantify the material
component of the body, but not the immaterial soul. Eventually we
will learn to get around that (opinion again), but we will never again
be able to avoid the realisation we have souls.
But what they are and when they are "inserted", or from who we don't
know.
Bob Crowley
Quito Quito
is life. What is called/perceived as soul is just some properties of
life. However, life is just a phenomenon displayed when substances are
combined in a certain way, and it cannot exist independently.
For instance, water has some properties, such as being a liquid, being
able to flow, being able to frozen, being drunken by human beings,
etc., but such properties are resulted from the combination of
hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) in a certain way (H2O), and when water is
decomposed into hydrogen and oxygen, there is nowhere to find the
properties of water. In other words, the essence of water cannot exist
independent of substance, or more precisely, independent of the
combination of hydrogen and oxygen in that particular way.
Soul/life to body is as water to hydrogen and oxygen. Soul/life does
not exist without substance just as water does not exist without
hydrogen and oxygen.
After a person dies, the body decays and becomes dust. There is
nothing as life or soul left. Part of that dust may become part of the
body of a new person. Just like the hydrogen and oxygen molecules from
decomposition of some water may combine later with other hydrogen and
oxygen molecules to form water again.
msadk...@yahoo.com (Mark Adkins) wrote in message news:<W3FPc.17337$Je5....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...
>
Matthew Johnson
>
> > The Christian tradition seems universally agreed
> > that human beings possess souls.
>
>A soul is simply a psyche, a "self."
No. 'Self' is only ONE meaning of the word 'psyche'.
>Perhaps it would be
>better to say not that we possess souls, but that we
>ARE souls.
But this ignores the unavoidable fact that we also have bodies. So that we are
really a _composite_ of 'soul' and 'body'. For the body is clearly not the soul,
and the soul is clearly not the body, although we find it hard to imagine how it
can exist without it.
> If my Greek doesn't fail,
It did;)
> we now possess
>bodies of flesh (soma sarkos) and some day we will
>possess spiritual bodies (soma pneumatikos), but a
>soul is what we ARE.
IOW, you have turned things around from the usual limited understanding: instead
of saying that we _are_ bodies which _have_ souls, you say we _are_ souls that
_have_ bodies.
But this too is limited. For as I already pointed out, it overlooks that we are
BOTH body and soul.
>I like computer analogies.
Well, they do have their uses.
>I have some FORTRAN code
>nearly 40 years old. On modern computer hardware
>it will run perhaps 10,000 times faster than on the
>hardware of the 60's, but it will give the very same
>answers.
>
>Some day we will run on much better hardware, but
>the soul - the self - is the same.
But there is _still_ something missing to the idea of 'self' here: for my body
is part of my 'self'. And it is made _my_ self specifically because of my soul.
But without the body, my 'self' is incomplete. That is why, in the General
Resurrection, it is my _own_ body I will be resurrected with.
And even the notion of "much better hardware" appears to miss something
important; the difference between the "new hardware" and the "old hardware" is
not just that the "hardware is better", but that our "old hardware" _limits_ the
soul (for our own good), while the "new hardware" will not, since our _need_ for
the limit will have disappeared.
--
---------------------------------------
Subducat se sibi, ut haereat Deo. Quidquid
boni habet, illi tribuat a quo factus est (St. Aug. Ser. 96)
Mark Adkins
> The concept of soul is practically unfounded. If there is anything, it
> is life. What is called/perceived as soul is just some properties of
> life. However, life is just a phenomenon displayed when substances are
> combined in a certain way, and it cannot exist independently.
>
> For instance, water has some properties, such as being a liquid, being
> able to flow, being able to frozen, being drunken by human beings,
> etc., but such properties are resulted from the combination of
> hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) in a certain way (H2O), and when water is
> decomposed into hydrogen and oxygen, there is nowhere to find the
> properties of water. In other words, the essence of water cannot exist
> independent of substance, or more precisely, independent of the
> combination of hydrogen and oxygen in that particular way.
>
> Soul/life to body is as water to hydrogen and oxygen. Soul/life does
> not exist without substance just as water does not exist without
> hydrogen and oxygen.
>
> After a person dies, the body decays and becomes dust. There is
> nothing as life or soul left. Part of that dust may become part of the
> body of a new person. Just like the hydrogen and oxygen molecules from
> decomposition of some water may combine later with other hydrogen and
> oxygen molecules to form water again.
Well, first of all, I believe that "bodies" (like everything
else "material") are a product of mind. I don't believe in
mechanical causality, materialism, etc., or even that these
terms can be logically defined. I am also highly skeptical
about the merits of undemonstrated argument by analogy. But,
that notwithstanding, if "life" is a body/soul combination,
why should body continue to exist (whether as decaying matter
or not) when the soul does not? That is, if the soul cannot
exist in the absence of a body, then why is it that a body
can exist in the absence of a soul?
Also, if souls and bodies have no independent conceptual
existence, how can they be defined and referred to? (You
talk about the body and soul *combining* to make life, which
implies at least a conceptual differentiation of the two.)
This is one of the problems I have with conventional monism:
the phrase "everything is one" or "everything is indivisible" is
inherently contradictory, since if the word "everything"
implies a multiplicity.
Mark Adkins
>
> The plain fact of the matter is that we don't know and can only
> speculate. I am inclined to believe God does "stuff the envelope" to
> use your phrase, and in a sense puts a bit of Himself into it. He is
> after all the original spirit. This begs the question as to sin,
> rebellion etc, since the spiritual component must more or less come
> directly from Him.
>
> We are told however that "sin" or the tendency to rebel against Him is
> endemic to the human race. So perhaps there is some immaterial
> inheritance from the human parents as well. Christ for example had a
> human mother, but a divine Father.
>From my own direct, personal experience as a sentient being,
I don't believe that sentient beings will to evil. This world
is a fiction and the apparent "other beings" in it are also
fictitious: mindless false-forms whose sentience is illusory.
Like figures in a dream, they appear conscious and independent
but are neither. That's my solution to the problem of evil. The
only solution to such a problem is the Gordian solution (of
cutting the knot). Those who spend time trying to make sense
out of nonsense (trying to unravel the knot, metaphorically
speaking) will only tie their own mind into knots, because
the only way a kink can appear straight to the viewer is if
the viewer is kinked.
BHZellner
> dust. There is nothing as life or soul left.
Even the largest and most complicated computer
program can be "checkpointed," that is, a snapshot
copy is made of its current code and data. The
checkpoint can be restored at any later time, even
on very different hardware. Whether the original
hardware still exists or not is irrelevant.
I believe that God can and does do the same thing
with us right up to the moment of our deaths. At
any later time He can restore that checkpoint. But
a soul isn't hardware, it's the data pattern recorded
in the checkpoint. After all, a human mind is only a
few terabytes!
Does that make sense?
Ben
Quito Quito
Instead, modern life/medical sciences are based on it and, most
importantly, it *works*. The ancient/religious concept of soul, on the
other hand, remains merely a belief and unproved. The reason I used
the term "soul" is only for the convenience of discussion, because it
already existed before modern science.
Why can body exist without life/soul but not vice versa? Two examples:
hydrogen and oxygen can exist independenly, but water cannot not exist
without hydrogen and oxygen. Bricks/wood can exist without
houses/buildings, but houses/buildings cannot exist without
bricks/wood.
msadk...@yahoo.com (Mark Adkins) wrote in message news:<Z%BQc.1533$z9....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
> qqu...@hotmail.com (Quito Quito) wrote in message news:<VuYPc.16801$UN2....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
> Well, first of all, I believe that "bodies" (like everything
> else "material") are a product of mind. I don't believe in
...
Matthew Johnson
>
>bobcr...@optusnet.com.au (Bob Crowley) wrote in message
>news:<UuYPc.16798$UN2....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
>
>>
>> The plain fact of the matter is that we don't know and can only
>> speculate. I am inclined to believe God does "stuff the envelope" to
>> use your phrase, and in a sense puts a bit of Himself into it. He is
>> after all the original spirit. This begs the question as to sin,
>> rebellion etc, since the spiritual component must more or less come
>> directly from Him.
>>
>> We are told however that "sin" or the tendency to rebel against Him is
>> endemic to the human race. So perhaps there is some immaterial
>> inheritance from the human parents as well. Christ for example had a
>> human mother, but a divine Father.
>
>>From my own direct, personal experience as a sentient being,
>I don't believe that sentient beings will to evil.
Well, so? A lot of us could respond with, "And from _my_ own direct, personal
experience as a sentient being, I _do_ know that sentient beings really do will
evil".
So how can you answer that ?
[snip]
John Sparks
news:Z%BQc.1533$z9....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> Well, first of all, I believe that "bodies" (like everything
> else "material") are a product of mind.
I know of other people who believe the same thing. But I don't see any of
them stepping out in the middle of the road in front of a moving bus to
prove their theory. Wonder why that is? ;-)
Mike
Mike's addition -
Perhaps I can add something here. It may confuse things further but
here goes.
Supposing we develop the analogy of water, oxygen and hydrogen further
like this. Oxygen as Consciousness, the Light of Life and hydrogen as
Being, the Essence of Life.
Then water would equate to Life itself , i.e. Conscious Being, which
in its grossest form, the material body, would be like the ice you
mention.
For the sake of this argument, lets call Existence everything that is
not simply Being in its purest state. Being is changeless, formless
and eternal whereas Existence is continuously changing its form. The
human physical body is in Existence and subject to change, e.g. it
dies and decomposes. The Life in it so far as it is Conscious
continues to Be. However,the human being, in Existence seems to have
other changeable elements, which reside in, lets call it the soul or
psyche. These can be recognised as thoughts, opinions, beliefs,
disbeliefs and emotions etc. which are also changeable. Continuing
the analogy, this would be fog - a combination of water vapour and
trapped or collected impurities. It is these impurities that attach
themselves to the Consciousness element almost blinds it and separates
it from Being (eternal). I, the Consciousness in this body, starts to
identify with the fog, which I think of as my 'self', a false entity
which then rules my LIfe and bends me to its will and later tries to
bend others to its will.
Of course, this is only an analogy and analogies at best, can only
point to the Truth not be a substitute for it. The phrase 'everything
is one' can perhaps be best put as 'All is One' but this is impossible
to see or be conscious of if we are looking through a 'fog' as this
fragments and distorts our view. Incidentally, I understand the
Hebrew language had at least two words for 'soul' - nephesh - a soul
which we have in common with the animal world, and neshama - a human
soul - ? the fog? Maybe any Hebrew scholars can amplify.
Best wishes Mike.
Loren
>
> Are these souls pre-existing, in which the question
> becomes, Where did they exist, and for how long, prior
> to incarnation? ; or, are they newly created?
>
> ----
>
> [The Christian tradition generally doesn't accept preexisting souls. I
> won't say no one has suggested it, but it's not the common
> view.
I really surprised by this reply, Charles. The two major views
concerning the creation of the soul are, of course, traducianism and
creationism, the latter being that God created all the souls prior to
the 7th day of creation and "holds" them until imputing them into
procreated bodies. Traducianism, other other hand, maintains that the
plural "lives" in Gen 2:7 infers that man not only procreates the
physical body, but the spiritual body as well.
> Because there's no really clear answer in Scripture or the
> creeds, this is a matter on which people speculate. The most common
> speculations are traducianism -- that the soul comes from the parents,
> via a mechanism that isn't specified, and creationism -- that God
> creates the soul at some point in each person's development. Catholic
> and most Reformed theology tends to accept creationism,
> Lutherans and the Eastern Church (?) traducianism.
Not according to Matthew's postings wherein he accuses me of being a
heretic for holding to the traducian view.
>A search for traducianism in Google will turn up a number of useful
references.
http://www.apuritansmind.com/FrancisTurretin/francisturretincrerationismtraducianism.htm
[procreationism]
Chafer [Systematic Theology] writes concerning strengths of the
traducian model:
" This system of belief avers that both the immaterial and material
parts of man are propagated by human generation. On its general
character, Dr. Shedd writes: "Traducianism applies the idea of species
to both body and soul. Upon the sixth day, God created two human
individuals, one male and one female, and in them also created the
specific psychico-physical nature from which all the subsequent
individuals of the human family are procreated both psychically and
physically.... Creationism confines the idea of species to the body.
In this respect, it agrees with the theory of pre-existence; the
difference relating only to the time when the soul is created.
Creationism and pre-existence both alike maintain that the human soul
is individual only, and never had a race-existence in Adam. The
creationist holds that God on the sixth day created two human
individuals, one male and one female, and in them also created the
specific physical nature from which the bodies of all the subsequent
individuals were procreated; the soul in each instance being a new
creation ex nihilo, and infused into the propagated body.... The
choice must be made between traducianism and creationism, since the
opinion that man as to his soul existed before Adam has no support
from revelation. The Bible plainly teaches that Adam was the first
man; and that all finite spirits existing before him were angels. The
question between the traducianist and the creationist is this: When
God created the first two human individuals, Adam and Eve, did he
create in and with them the invisible substance of all the succeeding
generations of men, both as to the soul and body, or only as to the
one body? Was the human nature that was created in Adam and Eve
simple, or complex? Was it physical solely, or was it
psychico-physical? Had the human nature in the first pair two sides,
or only one? Was provision made for propagating out of the specific
nature deposited in Adam, individuals who would be a union of body and
soul, or only a mere body without a soul? The question, consequently,
between the parties involves the quantity of being that was created on
the sixth day, when God is said to have created man.' The
traducianist asserts that the entire invisible substance of all the
generations of mankind was originated ex nihilo, by that single act of
God mentioned in Gen 1:27, by which he created man male and female.'
The creationist asserts that only a part of the invisible substance of
all the generations of mankind was created by that act; namely, that
of their bodies; the invisible substance which constitutes their souls
being created subsequently, by as many distinct and separate creative
acts as there are individual souls. Traducianism and creationism agree
with each other in respect to the most difficult point in the problem:
namely, a kind of existence that is prior to the individual existence.
The creationist concedes that human history does not start with the
birth of the individual man. He does not attempt to explain original
sin with no reference to Adam. He maintains that the body and physical
life of the individual is not a creation ex nihilo in each instance,
but is derived from a common physical nature that was originated on
the sixth day. In so doing, the creationist concedes existence in
Adam, quoad hoc. But this race-mode of human existence, which is prior
to the individual mode, is the principal difficulty in the problem,
and in conceding its reality as to the body, the creationist carries a
common burden with the traducianist. For it is as difficult to think
of an invisible existence of the human body in Adam, as to think of an
invisible existence of the human soul in him. In reality, it is even
more difficult; because the body of an individual man, as we now know
it, is visible and tangible, while his soul is not. And an invisible
and intangible existence in Adam is more conceivable than a visible
and tangible.... There are difficulties attending either theory of the
origin of man, but fewer connected with traducianism than with
creationism. If the mystery of a complete existence in Adam on both
the psychical and physical side is accepted, the difficulties
connected with the imputation of the first sin and the propagation of
corruption are relieved. As Turretin says, there is no doubt that by
this theory all the difficulty seems to be removed.' It is only the
first step that costs. Adopting a revealed mystery in the start, the
mystery in this instance, as in all the other instances of revealed
mysteries, throws a flood of light, and makes all things plain."
Following this portion of Dr. Shedd's treatment of this theme, he
undertakes in seventy-five pages to discuss problems from three
avenues of approach, namely, (a) the Scriptures, (b) theology, and (c)
psychology. An attentive study of these pages is enjoined upon
students who would pursue an exhaustive treatment of these
far-reaching issues. No such an array of convincing argument has been
presented, it is believed, by any creationist and it is doubtful
whether the creation theory is capable of such a worthy expansion."
******
Shedd's opinion can be read at length in his masterful volume,
"Theologica Dogmatica." A new (3rd) ed has recently been released I
feel sets the standard for all theological editing of older works.
Even though you claim to be an athiest, this is a title I would highly
recommend you purchasing to has the basic tenents of Christianity at
your disposal. Shedd's theology is based upon his view of the
"inclination of the will".
-------------
[Your definition of creationism differs from others that I'm aware of.
>traducianism and creationism, the latter being that God created all
>the souls prior to the 7th day of creation and "holds" them until
>imputing them into procreated bodies.
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says that according to
creationism, souls are created at the time of conception or birth.
For an online reference see, e.g.
http://www.wls.wels.net/Publications/Theologia/vol2no3/WietzkeSoul/WietzkeSoul.htm
--clh]
Loren
>
> But what they are and when they are "inserted", or from who we don't
> know.
>
> Bob Crowley
But this could be so concluded about a great many doctrines. For
instance, maybe God isn't merely a Trinity but posibly having more
members. The scriptures reveal three persons but one could speculate
that in the hereafter or possibly in another "time" or "expression"
there may be more. (I'm only saying this to make a point.)
Traducianism without argument has the better scriptural defense.
There is no advocacy of creationism that I am aware of which compares
to the advocacy of traducianism by Shedd.
For those who are looking for a simpler overview, read Chafer's
account in either Bibliotheca Sacra or his Systematic Theology.
Loren
> is life. What is called/perceived as soul is just some properties of
> life. However, life is just a phenomenon displayed when substances are
> combined in a certain way, and it cannot exist independently.
>
knows which one to quote first. Mk 8:36/Lk 9:25 immediately comes to
mind.
A study of "grave", "death," "Sheol/Hades" also reveals the reality of
men possessing souls, i.e. that immaterial aspect of man which is
everlasting. Sheol & the NT Greek, Hades, is most important where
noting the continuation of man apart from his physical body. Biblical
Sheol is always evil and nothing but. Though the meaning of the
Hebrew is dubious at best, the scriptural presentation is not. Either
Sheol or Hades can be translated into the English to read, "hell."
Sheol in the OT is often interchanged with the concept of judgment.
Christ's story concerning (IMHO it is not a parable) of Dives and
Lazarus, Dives physical body has been destroyed and his soul has been
judged and is in present torment, awaiting the final judgment of the
GWTJ, where the degree of eternal torment is revealed and assigned.
The NT statement "the Son of man shall be 3 days and 3 nights in the
heart of the earth" (Mt 12:40) refes only to the burial of His
physical body, not to the residence of His eternal soul. For when He
said to the penitent thief on the cross, "This day you shall be with
Me in paradise," He did not mean that His human soul and that of the
penitent should be in the "heart of the earth," but rather, in
heavenly paradise. (Read Witsius "Apostles' Creed," Dissertation 17)
Loren
> I don't believe that sentient beings will to evil.
You're right. For the will cannot operate independent from its
inclination which is self determined. It is not as if unregenerated
man is capable of choosing between good and evil for the sinner never
inclines toward "good" (Rom 3:10ff). The will merely "inclines" to an
end or goal and "chooses" a means by which to achieve it. It is
singular and uncomplex in that it is unproductive of character and
disposition. A "choice" leaves the "chooser's" inclination /bias
/disposition exactly as it was originally. There is no self
possibility of an alteration in the bias of the will. Volitionary
choice acts out of a state of indifference toward the thing chosen.
To illustrate this I've before used the alcoholic who doesn't care
whether or not it is wine, whiskey, or for that matter, water, which
he drinks. His goal is only to get drunk. The inclination is always
selfish, therefore the "will" is not free in the sense that it can
change its inclination for the effect can never reach around and touch
its cause.
> This world
> is a fiction and the apparent "other beings" in it are also
> fictitious: mindless false-forms whose sentience is illusory.
Then history has no significance. You are using pantheistic
illusions.
> Like figures in a dream, they appear conscious and independent
> but are neither.
I'm forgetting my Eastern religion but who was it that married and the
two became neuter? You should read Os Guiness's "Dust of Death,"
particularly his chapter titled, "East, No Exit."
> That's my solution to the problem of evil.
Is that what it is really -a solution? I don't think so. I think you
should study other solutions to the apparent dilemma. Personally, I
see the advent of sin being part of the design of the Eternal Decree
inorder that the grace of God might be particularly displayed. Grace
is the overwhelming display of God in the "now" of man.
Loren
>
> The plain fact of the matter is that we don't know and can only
> speculate. I am inclined to believe God does "stuff the envelope" to
> use your phrase, and in a sense puts a bit of Himself into it. He is
> after all the original spirit.
But according to Paul in 2 Cor 5, it is the physical body which is to
be considered the "envelope," not the spiritual self. The envelope
is temporal. The spirit is eternal, in the never ending sense.
Matthew Johnson
>
>msadk...@yahoo.com (Mark Adkins) wrote in message
>news:<HEjPc.1868$lD5.1673@trndny03>...
>
>>
>> Are these souls pre-existing, in which the question
>> becomes, Where did they exist, and for how long, prior
>> to incarnation? ; or, are they newly created?
>>
>> ----
>>
>> [The Christian tradition generally doesn't accept preexisting souls. I
>> won't say no one has suggested it, but it's not the common
>> view.
>
>I really surprised by this reply, Charles.
You shouldn't be. For creationism and pre-existence of souls really are
essentially different. Why, your own Chafer quote treats the two as distinct.
Didn't you notice?
[snip]
>> Lutherans and the Eastern Church (?) traducianism.
>
>Not according to Matthew's postings wherein he accuses me of being a
>heretic for holding to the traducian view.
I was thinking of correcting Charles on this one, but I had bigger fish to fry.
Charles is thinking of certain minority opinions among the Fathers, probably
among Fathers whose minority opinions have attracted WAY too much attention in
the West.
Loren
>
> -------------
>
> [Your definition of creationism differs from others that I'm aware of.
>
> >traducianism and creationism, the latter being that God created all
> >the souls prior to the 7th day of creation and "holds" them until
> >imputing them into procreated bodies.
>
> The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says that according to
> creationism, souls are created at the time of conception or birth.
> For an online reference see, e.g.
>
It's been a while since I've looked at this but as I remember it,
modern creationism separates itself from earlier creationism because
of the traducian objection that the scriptures declare that God rested
from ex nihilo creation on the 7th day. If that is true, then how can
it be said that He creates them at the time of birth?
---
[Yes, God rested on the 7th day. Does this mean his creative power is
no longer at work? I doubt it. For some Reformed views see
http://www.apuritansmind.com/FrancisTurretin/francisturretincrerationismtraducianism.htm
http://www.dabar.org/Theology/Hodge/HodgeVII/P2_C03.htm
Hodge deals with the 7th day, but only in a metaphorical sense. He rejects
your suggestion, as a challenge to God's continued work in the world.
--clh]
Matthew Johnson
>msadk...@yahoo.com (Mark Adkins) wrote in message
>news:<_%BQc.1534$z9....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
>
>> I don't believe that sentient beings will to evil.
>
>You're right.
Why are you agreeing with him? You don't really believe the same thing at all.
>For the will cannot operate independent from its
>inclination which is self determined.
What a confusing mess you have made out of volitional terminology! No, Loren, it
is not the _inclination_ which is 'self-determined', but the willer himself. And
his 'self-determination' does not leave him free to do or will whatever, but
only means that there is no outside force determining his actions (as the
astrologers believe). We are neither puppets nor finite-state-machines.
>It is not as if unregenerated
>man is capable of choosing between good and evil for the sinner never
>inclines toward "good" (Rom 3:10ff).
The words 'inclination', 'incline' etc. are never used in that passage. So it is
not as easy as that.
>The will merely "inclines" to an
>end or goal
But this is an equivocal use of the words 'will' and 'incline'. For the
_natural_ will could be said to 'incline' to an end, but that end is always
good. It is the _gnomic_ will that "gets in the way", inclining the _willer_ to
choose evil instead.
> and "chooses" a means by which to achieve it.
And now it is 'chooses' you are using in an equivocal manner. For it is the
_willer_ who chooses, NOT the will, NOR the inclination.
>It is
>singular and uncomplex in that it is unproductive of character and
>disposition.
That is NOT what "singular and uncomplex" would mean.
>A "choice" leaves the "chooser's" inclination /bias
>/disposition exactly as it was originally.
Hardly. Your own example of the alcoholic disproves this. After choosing not to
fight the growing addiction, the severe addict inclines _much more strongly_ to
drunkenness. If no restraining force intervenes, he ends up imbibing toxic
levels and destroying his liver.
>There is no self
>possibility of an alteration in the bias of the will. Volitionary
>choice acts out of a state of indifference toward the thing chosen.
Again, your own example disproves this. For the severe alcoholic's desire for
alcohol is ANYTHING BUT 'indifference'.
>To illustrate this I've before used the alcoholic who doesn't care
>whether or not it is wine, whiskey, or for that matter, water, which
>he drinks.
That's nonsense. Water? Get real, Loren.
> His goal is only to get drunk.
And how is he going to get drunk on water???
> The inclination is always selfish,
No, it is not. That _was_ the point behind my rebuking you for making such
exalted claims concerning your 'knowledge' of St. Augustine's anthropology. For
St. Augustine himself _clearly_ contradicts this in his description of the
difference between the _good_ "amor sui" and the _bad_ "amor sui", the "amor sui
perversus & cavendus". Read that chapter of The City of God again (Book 14 ch.
28). Better yet, supplement it with De Doctrina Christiana I 22.20 thru 31.34,
especially 26.27 - 27.28, which contains the choice lines:
Omnis peccator in quantum peccator est, non est diligendus,
et omnis homo in quantum homo est, diligendus est propter
Deum, Deus vero propter seipsum. Et si Deus omni homine
amplius diligendus est, amplius quisque Deum debet diligere
quam seipsum. Item amplius alius homo diligendus est quam
corpus nostrum, quia propter Deum omnia ista diligenda sunt
et potest nobiscum alius homo Deo perfrui, quod non potest
corpus, quia corpus per animam vivit qua fruimur Deo.
(From http://www.augustinus.it)
Or, for the Latin-challenged:
No sinner is to be loved as a sinner; and every man is to be loved
as a man for God's sake; but God is to be loved for His own sake.
And if God is to be loved more than any man, each man ought
to love God more than himself. Likewise we ought to love another
man better than our own body, because all things are to be loved
in reference to God, and another man can have fellowship with us
in the enjoyment of God, whereas our body cannot; for the body
only lives through the soul, and it is by the soul that we enjoy God.
(from http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-02/npnf1-02-32.htm)
Clearly the inclination of a man who says from the heart "I love Thee, God, my
strength (Ps 18:1) is NOT "always selfish"!
> therefore the "will" is not free in the sense that it can
>change its inclination for the effect can never reach around and touch
>its cause.
But that is an uninteresting sense of 'free'. Did anyone in this thread claim
_that_ sense of 'freedom' for the will? Besides: by ascetic self-denial, the
willer _can_ use the disciplining of his will to change even his inclination.
Even in the example you gave, the alcoholic, we occasionally see this: when the
alcoholic stops drinking alcohol completely, and _persists_, the desire for
alcohol eventually fades away. But we see this rarely because at first, it is so
difficult. But it does happen, and even atheists can do it (but among them, it
is even more rare).
[snip]
>Is that what it is really -a solution? I don't think so.
You are right. It was no solution. But did you ever wonder why people are fooled
into accepting such a non-solution as a 'solution'? I think it has something to
do with the _disgust_ so many intelligent, thinking educated people feel for the
other non-solutions heard FAR too often in this NG, such as the Calvinistic
"absolute fiat" definition of righteousness!
>I think you should study other solutions to the apparent dilemma.
So should you. Start with St. Basil's Sermon 9 "That God is not the Author of
Evil". Or turn to Homily 20 "On Humility", where he also covers it,
but in less detail. Or even turn to Augustine's Enchiridion ch.10-12, De Libero
Arbitrio (various passages) or De Ordine.
In fact, a brief glance at the paper on Augustine and the Problem of Evil at
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/augustine/ferg shows that De Ordine is _central_
to understanding Augustine's position. But then again, much of the same material
is also in De Natura Bona, which has the advantage of being readily available in
English at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1407.htm.
In fact, the last two have the advantage that if you read either one closely
enough, you will see where your Reform heroes so _badly_ misread Augustine!
>Personally, I
>see the advent of sin being part of the design of the Eternal Decree
>inorder that the grace of God might be particularly displayed. Grace
>is the overwhelming display of God in the "now" of man.
Of course, the problem with this formulation is that not so many are
"overwhelmed" by the display; in fact, many doubt the display even exists. So
what _did_ you hope to accomplish by repeating _this_ formulation?
Loren
lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) wrote in message news:<X9gSc.7065$AA1.3881@trndny06>...
>
> [Yes, God rested on the 7th day. Does this mean his creative power is
> no longer at work? I doubt it.
>
Then just what creative fiat did God rest from on the 7th day? When
we follow this into the NT, most assuredly regeneration is a creative
act but not on the ex niliho scale of upto the 7th day. Even the new
heavens and the new earth appear not to be ex niliho but rather a
regeneration of the present continuum. Modern day physics evidences
that when atoms are separated (2 Pet 3:10) that matter merely
transfers into energy. It is not lost or annihilated. My point is
that God did significantly rest on the 7th day. For the revelation we
have now, it appears that God does not again create ex niliho.
>
> For some Reformed views see
>http://www.apuritansmind.com/FrancisTurretin/francisturretincrerationismtraducianism.htm
In my original post I gave this website.
> http://www.dabar.org/Theology/Hodge/HodgeVII/P2_C03.htm
>
I once again read through Hodge last night "Origin of the Soul"
covers pp. 65-72. Shedd's formal coverage is from p 429 to 493 in the
3rd ed. Shedd reveiws the positions held by Jewish rabbinic schools,
Origen, Augustine, Aquinas, Tertullian, Ambrose, Jerome, Pelagius,
Belarmine, Calixtus, Lactantius, Hilary, John of Damascus, Anselm,
Turretin, Paraeus, Watson, Luther & Calvin, to name a few, including
discusions as pertaining to the WCF.
> Hodge deals with the 7th day, but only in a metaphorical sense. He rejects
> your suggestion, as a challenge to God's continued work in the world. --clh]
But remember my contention was ex nihilo creation. Shedd destroys
Hodge point by point, concerning such however. Do you have access to
his Dogmatic Theology? Even Chafer notes, "it is difficult to
understand that a sinful nature which is attributed to all men and
traced to the sin of Adam can exist, if God creates each soul and
spirit individually at birth ex nihilo."
As I have said, I have yet to read any thing, pro or con, which so
examines this subject to the degree which Shedd does. In fact, to
read the entirety of his DT, one realizes how this basic doctrine
affects so many others, including but not limited to: eschatology,
harmatology, soteriology (for instance, creationism diminishes the
Kinsman-Redeemer to quasi kinsmanship), and of course anthropology
which includes discussion of creation, the will, original
sin/depravity and even having to do with whether one is a dichotomite
or a trichotomite ..
I noticed that Hodge has only one paragraph of discussion (pt 3 of
"creationism") concerning the incarnation as related to this issue.
He does not see how, under the traducian model, Christ could be
uninvolved in the Adamic nature. [it is interesting to follow this
objection on into the RC view of traducianism] Shedd answers this
argument at some length. Even Chafer offers a couple of pages. In my
own studies, I found application in the first few chapters of Genesis
concerning where "Adam" did not distinquish between Adam and Eve, to
where it only applied to the man, Adam. The scriptures indicate that
the immaterial part of man is transmitted from father to son, not from
mother to son. It is the father who propagates after his own kind
(ex. Heb 7:9, 10; Lk 1:35).
Having read all three volumes of Hodge earlier this year, I was as
impressed with his defense of creationism as I have witnessed
evolutionist being impressed with their scientific apologist -at least
until the other side is presented. I purchased Shedd after reading
Hodge for he had caused me to doubt my original position. However,
having read Shedd thoroughly, now I see Hodge as not really dedicating
himself to all the precipitate of the discussion as Shedd has.
Hodge's arguments simply pale in light of Shedd's counter-points.
I agree with Chafer when noting that scriptures support both dichotomy
and trichotomy. Opinions usually vary as to whether one is "impressed
with the distinctions" or "impressed with the similarities" of soul
and spirit. "The mystery of life is baffling and never more so than
when an analysis of the immaterial part of man is undertaken." (Sys
Theo. vol 2/7 p. 180) But I also agree with him in his analysis of
both Hodge and Shedd, that the scriptures supporting traducianism are
greater and more natural. Turretin states concerning traducianism,
"there is no doubt that by this theory all the difficulty seems to be
removed," concerning the array of doctrines affected.
Shedd writes: "Traducianism and creationism agree with each other in
respect to the most difficult point in the problem: namely, a kind of
existence that is prior to the individual existence. The creationist
concedes that human history does not start with the birth of the
individual man. He does not attempt to explain original sin with no
reference to Adam. He maintains that the body and physical life of
the individual is not a creation ex nihilo in each instance, but is
derived from a common physical nature that was originated on the sixth
day. In so doing, the creationist concedes existence in Adam, quoad
hoc. But this race-mode of human existence, which is prior to the
individual mode, is the principal difficulty in the problem, and in
conceding its reality as to the body, the creationist carries a common
burden with the traducianist. For it is as difficult to think of an
invisible existence of the human soul in him. In reality, it is even
more difficult; because the body of an individual man, as we now know
it, is visible and tangible, while his soul is not. And an invisible
and intangible existence in Adam is more conceivable than a visible
and tangible."
He further admits "There are difficulties attending either theory of
the origin of man, but fewer connected with traducianism than with
creationism." Chafer concludes, "though the subject is shrouded in
mystery -as is the fact of all life of every kind- the preponderance
of evidence sustains the traducian theory." I just happen to agree
after having examined the apologies offered by these two great modern
Calvinistic theologians. I feel that traducianism better illustrates
nephesh in the community of man as reflecting that in the high order
of Trinity. Creationism reduces the nephesh community (cf. Erickson,
"God in Three Persons.")
----
[I'm not expressing an opinion on traducianism vs creationism.
My comments were simply about the argument that Gen 2:2 rules it out.
I see other problems with creationism. --clh]
Loren
> >A "choice" leaves the "chooser's" inclination /bias
> >/disposition exactly as it was originally.
>
> Hardly. Your own example of the alcoholic disproves this. After choosing not to
> fight the growing addiction, the severe addict inclines _much more strongly_ to
> drunkenness. If no restraining force intervenes, he ends up imbibing toxic
> levels and destroying his liver.
>
Then you too don't follow the dynamic. I mentioned that alcoholic
drinking water because if he could achieve the same end, he would do
so. He is inclined toward the goal of drunkeness. The will is
subject to that inclination. And, if he so choses not to drink at
all, nothing has changed for he is still inclining toward self,
whether he does it not to lose face because of some situation, or
because he choses to do something else with his money. The point is,
his orientation never changes. It is always to gratify self. This is
why 1) the doctrine of total depravity is a given and 2) the Law
cannot bring forth righteousness. Salvation by grace alone is the
imputation of Christ's righteousness extra nos. It is totally alien
because man's orientation is only and always selfish. He cannot
"choose" to do good because his inclination is always toward self,
i.e. totally depraved. The RC idea of the infusion of Christ's
righteousness into the sinner to enable him to strive toward a
righteous standing before God is anti-biblical. There is NO merit or
demerit involved in grace whatsoever.
> >There is no self
> >possibility of an alteration in the bias of the will. Volitionary
> >choice acts out of a state of indifference toward the thing chosen.
>
> Again, your own example disproves this. For the severe alcoholic's desire for
> alcohol is ANYTHING BUT 'indifference'.
>
No. It is not. His inclination toward drunkedness is wholly selfish.
He doesn't care what it takes to get the job done. All he wants is
to get drunk. I've worked with alcoholic's in inner city Chicago.
I'm talking about drop out of society bums who panhandle corners to
scrape a couple of bucks together to buy the cheapest alcohol they can
get. They are totally indifferent to anything and everything except
the goal. Again, you seem not to grasp the basics of the dynamic.
>
> >To illustrate this I've before used the alcoholic who doesn't care
> >whether or not it is wine, whiskey, or for that matter, water, which
> >he drinks.
>
> That's nonsense. Water? Get real, Loren.
>
> > His goal is only to get drunk.
>
> And how is he going to get drunk on water???
>
If water could get him intoxicated, he would drink it. He is
indifferent to the means. It is only the end which his will strives
for -to satisfy self. I've seen it at its worst. They don't care.
And all sinners are addicted to satisfying self in one form or
another, even in religion. For man can no more change that
inclination than the proverbial leopard can change its spots.
>
> > The inclination is always selfish,
>
> No, it is not. That _was_ the point behind my rebuking you for making such
> exalted claims concerning your 'knowledge' of St. Augustine's anthropology. For
> St. Augustine himself _clearly_ contradicts this in his description of the
> difference between the _good_ "amor sui" and the _bad_ "amor sui", the "amor sui
> perversus & cavendus". Read that chapter of The City of God again (Book 14 ch.
> 28). Better yet, supplement it with De Doctrina Christiana I 22.20 thru 31.34,
> especially 26.27 - 27.28, which contains the choice lines:
>
I supplied you with 3 Augustine quotes which counter your objection.
But it doesn't matter. All men are totally depraved after the fall.
Here is where Protestants separate themselves from the catholic
traditions which maintain that only a part of man fell. Again, their
system requires it to be so or it all collapses in upon itself.
>
> No sinner is to be loved as a sinner; and every man is to be loved
> as a man for God's sake; but God is to be loved for His own sake.
> And if God is to be loved more than any man, each man ought
> to love God more than himself. Likewise we ought to love another
> man better than our own body, because all things are to be loved
> in reference to God, and another man can have fellowship with us
> in the enjoyment of God, whereas our body cannot; for the body
> only lives through the soul, and it is by the soul that we enjoy God.
> (from http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-02/npnf1-02-32.htm)
>
> Clearly the inclination of a man who says from the heart "I love Thee, God, my
> strength (Ps 18:1) is NOT "always selfish"!
>
1) Even when the believing elect, full of the Spirit, say, "I love
Thee, God, my strength", it is said with the taint of sin. Only on
the otherside of the grave will the elect finally be ABLE to worship
in a true state of holiness.
2) But he cannot do that unless God first works a work of grace, i.e.
regeneration. Man fell in the garden. Plain and simple. The OT
teaches that all sin must be atoned for and that even the high priest
needed atonement. There is no record of any man not needing
atonement. And because all men were resident in Adam, when he fell,
the race fell.
I really do understand your objection. You have to object, that is,
your system requires it. For if total depravity is admitted, then
salvation is gained via that which is outside of man, not that which
is accomplished inside of man, thus condemning the entire religious
system which supposes otherwise. Oh I understand why you are so
opposed to sola fide, sola gratia and sola scriptura. It is all
systematically tied in with you objection.
>
> > therefore the "will" is not free in the sense that it can
> >change its inclination for the effect can never reach around and touch
> >its cause.
>
> But that is an uninteresting sense of 'free'. Did anyone in this thread claim
> _that_ sense of 'freedom' for the will?
You do this every time you yourself object to total depravity. RC's
do it every time they make justification a process and not a singular
declarative act of God -outside of man. You continually thumb your
nose at the systematization of theology, but the diversity of doctrine
is unified. It is all systematic and relational.
>
>Besides: by ascetic self-denial, the
> willer _can_ use the disciplining of his will to change even his inclination.
>
No he cannot. Paul attest to this even of the believer "in Christ" in
Rom 7. (Having Christ's righteousness imparted from without, extra
nos). Apart from yielding to the power of the Spirit, man cannot,
being completely unable to will to do anything outside of his natural
disposition which is always self oriented. He may do great external
deeds of "righteousness" but inwardly it is self serving, seeking some
sort of praise or merit from either man or God. Other than his sin,
the only thing man brings before God are his empty hands. If it is
all from Him, through Him and to Him, it rules out any thing self
oriented. Man was alienated from God in the garden. He was
originally created inclined toward God, deriving everything from Him.
After the fall, his only inclination was toward self, deriving
everything from self.
>
> Even in the example you gave, the alcoholic, we occasionally see this: when the
> alcoholic stops drinking alcohol completely, and _persists_, the desire for
> alcohol eventually fades away. But we see this rarely because at first, it is so
> difficult. But it does happen, and even atheists can do it (but among them, it
> is even more rare).
>
It doesn't matter. His inclination has not been changed. My aunt is
a reformed alcoholic. She gave it up because her family walked out on
her. She gave it up because alcohol nearly killed her child and did,
in the end, kill her marriage. But the point is she merely
subsitituted one selfish end for another. The orientation never
ceases from being selfish. This is the danger of religion where
"good" works afford the worker some measure of comfort in thinking
something is being accomplished and merits are being won. In the
final analysis, it is all selfish, thus Christ's own statement,
"Depart from me. I never knew you." What do you think "knew" refers
to -conscious awareness? Hopefully not.
This is true even of the believer who has been born again. Even after
our regeneration, even true works of righteousness done in the Spirit
are pitiful and selfish. Sure, they may for the most part be
unselfish and completely desirious of pleasing God, but even so, that
is selfish because we cannot escape the old nature which is always
self serving. That is why we cast our crowns at Christ's feet. Even
the rewards we win at His judgment seat are acknowledged as something
He accomplished in us dispite ourselves.
You may be very knowledgeable about the writings of the fathers and
knowledgeable about religious particulars, but you seem to be naive as
to the state of man.
>
> >Is that what it is really -a solution? I don't think so.
>
> You are right. It was no solution. But did you ever wonder why people are fooled
> into accepting such a non-solution as a 'solution'? I think it has something to
> do with the _disgust_ so many intelligent, thinking educated people feel for the
> other non-solutions heard FAR too often in this NG, such as the Calvinistic
> "absolute fiat" definition of righteousness!
>
Again, you continually prove that theology is systematic. Your
refusal to accept the fact that you and every other man, woman and
child ever born (certainly including myself) is alienated from God by
sin, can only produce such a response. Do you really think Luther
didn't understand the import of his breaking away from catholicISM?
>
> >I think you should study other solutions to the apparent dilemma.
>
> So should you. Start with St. Basil's Sermon 9 "That God is not the Author of
> Evil".
>
I have not read it but the Reformed position never requires God to be
the cause of sin. I've explained this before.
>
Or even turn to Augustine's Enchiridion ch.10-12,
>
Read it. But for you to refer to Enchiridion as I have to support
your position only goes to show why traditions cannot stand equal to
scripture. And because they are used to interpret scripture, in
actuality, to stand in authority over scripture. "All sinned." Rom
3:23 doesn't need to be explained. Funny, the reason that the RCC
sprinkles is because it holds only to partial depravity.
BTW, Augustine was a traducian. Read "Forgiveness and Baptism", 3:14,
18 or his letter to Jerome, 166;26, 28 but most esp. 166.6, 10.
Also, how do you counter what he wrote in his letter to Valentinum?
"Infants who have not yet done any works of their own, either good or
bad, will be condemned on account of original sin alone." (L. 215)
> >Personally, I
> >see the advent of sin being part of the design of the Eternal Decree
> >inorder that the grace of God might be particularly displayed. Grace
> >is the overwhelming display of God in the "now" of man.
>
> Of course, the problem with this formulation is that not so many are
> "overwhelmed" by the display; in fact, many doubt the display even exists. So
> what _did_ you hope to accomplish by repeating _this_ formulation?
>
Does it matter whether "here" we are overwhelmed or not? It is in the
"hereafter" where it will glorify God both for elect and non-elect.
It will condemn men who rejected His free offer. It will set men to
song and praise who accepted it even as it does now the angelic realm.
How shallow are those who are not overwhelmed by what Christ has done
for us. How sad it will be when they stand before Him and have to
give an account of why they sought silver and gold (I'm not talking
about money) in this life instead of laying up treasures for
themselves in the next. But then I suppose you do not see the
connection.
Overwhelmed? Sometimes it drives me to my knees. Sometimes it makes
me fear His appearing because of my depraved mishandling of such
magnificient grace. But then there are other times when it surrounds
me in awe and comforts me to think that He_chose_me. Overwhelmed?
Every saint worth his salt should be. That the unsaved do not only
further reveals their incapacity to "seek after God" because "there is
none who understands." They do not understand because they do not
derive their knowledge from God because they are incapable, only being
self inclined.
You know, the more you argue against this, the more you prove my
point.
Matthew Johnson
>
>Matthew Johnson <matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:<Y9gSc.7067$AA1.6473@trndny06>...
>
>> >A "choice" leaves the "chooser's" inclination /bias
>> >/disposition exactly as it was originally.
>>
>>Hardly. Your own example of the alcoholic disproves this. After choosing not to
>>fight the growing addiction, the severe addict inclines _much more strongly_ to
>> drunkenness. If no restraining force intervenes, he ends up imbibing toxic
>> levels and destroying his liver.
>>
>Then you too don't follow the dynamic.
No, your 'dynamic' is pure fiction.
> I mentioned that alcoholic
>drinking water because if he could achieve the same end, he would do
>so.
So not only is it hypothetical, it is a ridiculous and irrelevant hypothetical.
> He is inclined toward the goal of drunkenness.
There you are abusing that term again. I refer, of course, to 'inclination'. But
you forget: (or are you deliberately sweeping it under the rug): _what_ is the
drunkard trying to find in drunkenness? Why does he _consistently_ turn to what
destroys himself, when supposedly he is selfish? Selfish people do not
_deliberately_ destroy themselves. But drunkards do destroy themselves. Nor do
they have a monopoly on this blindly self-destructive behavior.
>The will is subject to that inclination.
No.
>And, if he so choses not to drink at
>all, nothing has changed for he is still inclining toward self,
Not true. If he keeps up that not drinking for long enough, the desire to drink
loses its force. Besides: those who learned to quit drinking the _Orthodox_ way
really _did_ lose the selfish inclination, too. The details are in Khrapovitsky.
>whether he does it not to lose face because of some situation, or
>because he choses to do something else with his money. The point is,
>his orientation never changes.
But this _simply_ is not true! And yet you claim to have worked with drunkards?
I am afraid you only hurt them, not helped them.
> It is always to gratify self.
Isn't that why you post, too? Besides: once you switch the topic to
self-gratification, we are no longer talking about 'inclination', but about
"amor sui" Yet you never _did_ read the Augustine citations on this topic I gave
you, did you?
> This is why 1) the doctrine of total depravity is a given
No, it is not. We have been over this often before, you have never been able to
give real support for your ignorant claim.
No surprise there, though, since you don't even know what Calvin _meant_ by
"total depravity". Yet again: the word 'total' is _extensive_ not _intensive_.
> and 2) the Law
>cannot bring forth righteousness. Salvation by grace alone is the
>imputation of Christ's righteousness extra nos.
Now _this_ Loren, is an excellent example of why I think you post out of the
desire for self-gratification. For you howl loudly and complain, when _I_ use
the Latin term "amor sui", yet here you are saying "extra nos".
I really cannot even imagine a righteous motive for such a blatant display of a
hypocritical double-standard, so I am lead to the conclusion that you write
these posts out of the selfish desire to please yourself, likely by making
yourself appear more pious or learned than others.
>It is totally alien
>because man's orientation is only and always selfish. He cannot
>"choose" to do good because his inclination is always toward self,
>i.e. totally depraved.
Here Augustine contradicts you: for he _clearly_ showed that this self-ward
inclination is _exactly_ what is destroyed by the spiritual warfare against
"amor sui".
> The RC idea of the infusion of Christ's
>righteousness into the sinner to enable him to strive toward a
>righteous standing before God is anti-biblical. There is NO merit or
>demerit involved in grace whatsoever.
No, it is your _claim_ here that has no merit. Besides: why are you even
_talking_ about RC theology? You bragged earlier of Clendenin's book on
Orthodoxy. Didn't the author at -least- explain how our theology differs from
the RC here? If not, then my previous condemnation of Clendenin was too mild!
>> >There is no self
>> >possibility of an alteration in the bias of the will. Volitionary
>> >choice acts out of a state of indifference toward the thing chosen.
>>
>> Again, your own example disproves this. For the severe alcoholic's desire for
>> alcohol is ANYTHING BUT 'indifference'.
>>
>No. It is not. His inclination toward drunkenness is wholly selfish.
So why are you calling it 'indifference'?
> He doesn't care what it takes to get the job done. All he wants is
>to get drunk. I've worked with alcoholic's in inner city Chicago.
>I'm talking about drop out of society bums who panhandle corners to
>scrape a couple of bucks together to buy the cheapest alcohol they can
>get. They are totally indifferent to anything and everything except
>the goal. Again, you seem not to grasp the basics of the dynamic.
No, it is you who do not grasp the basics. If you did grasp it, you would not
have said _so_ much of what you said! You would also know how wrong it was, by
considering the analogous situation: how does this drunkards 'indifference'
differ from the state _you_ would be in yourself, after going without food for a
week? Yet Christ went for forty days without, and _still_ refused to turn stones
into bread!
>> >To illustrate this I've before used the alcoholic who doesn't care
>> >whether or not it is wine, whiskey, or for that matter, water, which
>> >he drinks.
>>
>> That's nonsense. Water? Get real, Loren.
>>
>> > His goal is only to get drunk.
>>
>> And how is he going to get drunk on water???
>>
>If water could get him intoxicated, he would drink it.
Again, such a ridiculous hypothetical. All your 'experience' with "society bums"
has taught you NOTHING if you still believe your ridiculous hypothetical has
_any_ bearing on the topic. We _all_ drink water. And there is _nothing_ selfish
about our desire to drink water, when we are thirsty; unless, of course, you are
talking about before 15:00 on Good Friday;)
Then again, just the fact that you still stoop so low as to call them 'bums'
also shows you learned nothing.
Why, I once met a drunkard in Novgorod, whom you would have branded a 'bum', who
taught me more about repentance than you will ever know.
>He is
>indifferent to the means. It is only the end which his will strives
>for -to satisfy self. I've seen it at its worst. They don't care.
>And all sinners are addicted to satisfying self in one form or
>another, even in religion.
No, no, no! If you actually knew what you were talking about, you would have
known better than to say this. For you bragged of knowing Augustine's
'anthropology', yet he _clearly_ contradicts you in Sermon 96 (on "amor sui"),
where he says:
For to love o.s. is to do one's own will. But prefer instead God's will;
learn what it is to love o.s., NOT in loving o.s. (Serm 96 2.2)
The great Augustine would NEVER have commanded us to do the impossible, to
change our own inclination, unless he knew what you still blindly deny: it _is_
possible, by the grace of God. But "to love o.s., NOT in loving o.s." is
_definitely_ a major change of inclination.
>For man can no more change that
>inclination than the proverbial leopard can change its spots.
>> > The inclination is always selfish,
>>
>> No, it is not. That _was_ the point behind my rebuking you for making such
>>exalted claims concerning your 'knowledge' of St. Augustine's anthropology. For
>> St. Augustine himself _clearly_ contradicts this in his description of the
>>difference between the _good_ "amor sui" and the _bad_ "amor sui", the "amor sui
>>perversus & cavendus". Read that chapter of The City of God again (Book 14 ch.
>>28). Better yet, supplement it with De Doctrina Christiana I 22.20 thru 31.34,
>> especially 26.27 - 27.28, which contains the choice lines:
>>
>
> I supplied you with 3 Augustine quotes which counter your objection.
Only in your fertile imagination. They do not 'counter' it at all. But I _did_
counter your quotes, with Augustine quotes that showed you misread those you
cited. And you still have no rebuttal. Instead you resorted to _more_ out of
context quotes. No wonder only the lurkers stand a chance of benefitting from
these posts.
>But it doesn't matter.
Yes, it does. For once you understand how important "amor sui" was to
Augustine's 'anthropology', you will realize how badly you misunderstood not
only Augustine, but even all of Scripture.
> All men are totally depraved after the fall.
And if they fall into Calvinism, they _remain_ depraved.
>Here is where Protestants separate themselves from the catholic
>traditions which maintain that only a part of man fell.
What? No. Where _do_ you get this nonsense? More important, where do you get the
tragic delusion, that you can be doing God's work by repeating such slander?
And yes, it _is_ slander: for it is _clear_ from Catholic sources that they have
long taught that both body and soul were deeply wounded by the Fall. Tanquerey,
for example describes the wounds of the body as "passibility and mortality" and
the four wounds of the soul as "ignorance, by with the mind is _so_ weakened by
comparison with its former state that it knows the truth only with difficulty,
and easily falls into error", and "malice, in which the will is prone to evil,
and with difficulty overcomes vices and cultures virtues", "weakness of the
irascible appetite" and "concupiscence".
(Tanquerey, Brevior Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae #681). So what part is left
unharmed?
>Again, their system requires it to be so or it all collapses in upon itself.
If you actually paid attention to these posts, you would know by now that it is
_your_ system that has "collapsed in upon itself".
That is why, whenever you are in danger of recognizing your error, you turn away
from all logic, even from all common sense, and get back on your soap-box,
bleating the same misunderstood phrases from an even worse misunderstood verses.
>> No sinner is to be loved as a sinner; and every man is to be loved
>> as a man for God's sake; but God is to be loved for His own sake.
>> And if God is to be loved more than any man, each man ought
>> to love God more than himself. Likewise we ought to love another
>> man better than our own body, because all things are to be loved
>> in reference to God, and another man can have fellowship with us
>> in the enjoyment of God, whereas our body cannot; for the body
>> only lives through the soul, and it is by the soul that we enjoy God.
>> (from http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-02/npnf1-02-32.htm)
>>
>>Clearly the inclination of a man who says from the heart "I love Thee, God, my
>> strength (Ps 18:1) is NOT "always selfish"!
>>
>1) Even when the believing elect, full of the Spirit, say, "I love
>Thee, God, my strength", it is said with the taint of sin.
So close, and yet so far!
> Only on
>the otherside of the grave will the elect finally be ABLE to worship
>in a true state of holiness.
Again, so close, and yet so far! For when I read your words here and immediately
above, I am _immediately_ reminded of the humility of Sts. Basil the Great and
Ephrem the Syrian, who showed us what these words must _really_ mean. But no
matter how hard I try, I cannot believe that you mean the same as the great
saints did!
>2) But he cannot do that unless God first works a work of grace, i.e.
>regeneration. Man fell in the garden. Plain and simple. The OT
>teaches that all sin must be atoned for and that even the high priest
>needed atonement. There is no record of any man not needing
>atonement. And because all men were resident in Adam, when he fell,
>the race fell.
>
>Ireally do understand your objection.
No, you do not. On the contrary: the only thing you understand is a straw man
you have set up to protect yourself from facing the unpleasant truth; it is your
entire theology that is built on straw.
> You have to object, that is,
>your system requires it. For if total depravity is admitted, then
>salvation is gained via that which is outside of man, not that which
>is accomplished inside of man, thus condemning the entire religious
>system which supposes otherwise. Oh I understand why you are so
>opposed to sola fide, sola gratia and sola scriptura. It is all
>systematically tied in with you objection.
The only thing 'systematic' here is your systematic misreading not only of my
posts, but of the Fathers, and even of Scripture.
>> > therefore the "will" is not free in the sense that it can
>> >change its inclination for the effect can never reach around and touch
>> >its cause.
>>
>> But that is an uninteresting sense of 'free'. Did anyone in this thread claim
>> _that_ sense of 'freedom' for the will?
>
>You do this every time you yourself object to total depravity.
Nonsense.
> RC's
>do it every time they make justification a process and not a singular
>declarative act of God -outside of man. You continually thumb your
>nose at the systematization of theology, but the diversity of doctrine
>is unified. It is all systematic and relational.
>>
>>Besides: by ascetic self-denial, the
>> willer _can_ use the disciplining of his will to change even his inclination.
>>
>No he cannot. Paul attest to this even of the believer "in Christ" in
>Rom 7.
No, he says no such thing. As I have already reminded you MANY times, it is
controversial whether or not Paul even _is_ referring to the believer. He could
be referring to the plight of man _before_ baptism.
This ambiguity is exactly WHY you need to stifle your pride and submit to the
opinions of the Fathers on these verses. Otherwise you will never overcome your
fantastic pride of mind.
>(Having Christ's righteousness imparted from without, extra
>nos). Apart from yielding to the power of the Spirit, man cannot,
>being completely unable to will to do anything outside of his natural
>disposition which is always self oriented. He may do great external
>deeds of "righteousness" but inwardly it is self serving, seeking some
>sort of praise or merit from either man or God. Other than his sin,
>the only thing man brings before God are his empty hands. If it is
>all from Him, through Him and to Him, it rules out any thing self
>oriented.
"self oriented", yes. But that does NOT rule out the contribution of the free
will in submission to God. How many times do I have to remind you of this? Why
do you insist on repeating the same fallacy of composition?
> Man was alienated from God in the garden. He was
>originally created inclined toward God, deriving everything from Him.
>After the fall, his only inclination was toward self, deriving
>everything from self.
So you love to repeat. But I can't believe you really understand even your own
words here. For you have _still_ not answered the question: if before, his
inclination was solely God-ward, how did it make the transition to being
self-ward?
>>Even in the example you gave, the alcoholic, we occasionally see this: when the
>> alcoholic stops drinking alcohol completely, and _persists_, the desire for
>>alcohol eventually fades away. But we see this rarely because at first, it is so
>>difficult. But it does happen, and even atheists can do it (but among them, it
>> is even more rare).
>>
>It doesn't matter. His inclination has not been changed. My aunt is
>a reformed alcoholic. She gave it up because her family walked out on
>her. She gave it up because alcohol nearly killed her child and did,
>in the end, kill her marriage. But the point is she merely
>subsitituted one selfish end for another. The orientation never
>ceases from being selfish.
What really amazes me about Calvinists, Loren, is that Calvinists, and even
non-Calvinists who have carelessly allowed themselves to be poisoned by
Calvinist influence, can so glibly condemn others for this 'selfish end' even as
they pursue their _own_ selfish ends _so_ much more blatantly and obnoxiously.
But why shouldn't the readers of this NG assume that this is _exactly_ what you
do in your posts? After all, surely it is out of such selfish orientation that
you persistently "talk past" your interlocutor. Surely such selfishness explains
why you give reading homework to others, yet _never_ read Augustine for yourself
-- even as you boast of knowing his anthropology (which boast is clearly
groundless). Surely such selfishness explains the gross double-standard you
display by whining when I say "amor sui", but then yourself misusing "extra
nos".
>This is the danger of religion where
>"good" works afford the worker some measure of comfort in thinking
>something is being accomplished and merits are being won.
The _danger_ is real. But this is one of the temptations in the spiritual life;
it is avoided only by throwing down your weapons and running away from the
battle the Lord calls us to.
But the real tragedy, Loren, is that anyone deceived into following _your_
theology
will do _exactly_ this: run away.
> In the
>final analysis, it is all selfish, thus Christ's own statement,
>"Depart from me. I never knew you." What do you think "knew" refers
>to -conscious awareness? Hopefully not.
I am well aware of the wide semantic range of "to know" in NT Greek, which
imitates the Semitic languages here (as often). If _you_ were so aware, you
would know how your own refusal to follow Him into battle shows that He does not
'know' you.
>This is true even of the believer who has been born again. Even after
>our regeneration, even true works of righteousness done in the Spirit
>are pitiful and selfish.
Oh, no. If they are "true works of righteousness done in the Spirit", then they
are neither pitiful nor selfish. But perhaps you do not know this because it is
so completely outside your own experience.
>Sure, they may for the most part be
>unselfish and completely desirious of pleasing God, but even so, that
>is selfish because we cannot escape the old nature which is always
>self serving.
YOU can't. But that is because you threw down your weapons. Or is it because you
never picked them up?
> That is why we cast our crowns at Christ's feet. Even
>the rewards we win at His judgment seat are acknowledged as something
>He accomplished in us dispite ourselves.
>
>You may be very knowledgeable about the writings of the fathers and
>knowledgeable about religious particulars, but you seem to be naive as
>to the state of man.
Well, it may seem that way to you. But that is because you _still_ show that
same self-ward orientation in your posts, about which I complained so long ago
when I _first_ observed that you have the foul and offensive habit of "talking
past" your interlocutor.
Now I admit, blatant "talking past" is now rarer, but you _still_ have the
'inclination', just like the example you yourself gave of the drunkard who still
wants to drink.
How do I know this? Because you are _still_ presuming to know what you cannot
yet know, and insisting on reading me as an RC not an Orthodox. The distinction
_still_ eludes you, yet you don't have the guts to admit it and learn it.
>> >Is that what it is really -a solution? I don't think so.
>>
>>You are right. It was no solution. But did you ever wonder why people are fooled
>>into accepting such a non-solution as a 'solution'? I think it has something to
>>do with the _disgust_ so many intelligent, thinking educated people feel for the
>> other non-solutions heard FAR too often in this NG, such as the Calvinistic
>> "absolute fiat" definition of righteousness!
>>
>Again, you continually prove that theology is systematic. Your
>refusal to accept the fact that you and every other man, woman and
>child ever born (certainly including myself) is alienated from God by
>sin, can only produce such a response. Do you really think Luther
>didn't understand the import of his breaking away from catholicISM?
Yes, I think he did not understand. After all, the alternative to believing he
did not understand is to assume he really meant to spawn the deception and
turmoil of the Reformation. And even I won't attribute _that_ much evil to
Luther.
>> >I think you should study other solutions to the apparent dilemma.
>>
>> So should you. Start with St. Basil's Sermon 9 "That God is not the Author of
>> Evil".
>>
>I have not read it but the Reformed position never requires God to be
>the cause of sin. I've explained this before.
You have, true. And I also explained why that 'explanation' FAILS to absolve
God. For all it -really- accomplishes is to CALL what He does "not causing
sin/evil", while really leaving Him the cause of a very great evil.
Do I really need to explain why this is unacceptable?
>Or even turn to Augustine's Enchiridion ch.10-12,
>>
>Read it.
Then why do you have _nothing_ to say about it? Why do you immediately change
the topic, babbling about the 'unreliability' of 'traditions'?
>But for you to refer to Enchiridion as I have to support
>your position only goes to show why traditions cannot stand equal to
>scripture. And because they are used to interpret scripture, in
>actuality, to stand in authority over scripture.
Oh, really? Then do you place Greek-English lexicons as 'authorities over
scripture' too? But you use them in interpretation, I remember it well.
Oh, and by your reasoning, we would have to call Greek Grammars "authorities
over Scripture", too. But aren't both these examples good enough to show how
silly your reasoning is?
> "All sinned." Rom
>3:23 doesn't need to be explained.
Not so fast. Aren't you the one who once admited that 'all' doesn't always mean
'all' in Paul?
>Funny, the reason that the RCC
>sprinkles is because it holds only to partial depravity.
More slander against the RC. No, that has nothing to do with it. Nor is
'sprinkling' historically the normal mode. In fact, since Vatican II, it has
been popular to revive immersion.
>BTW, Augustine was a traducian.
Nonsense.
> Read "Forgiveness and Baptism", 3:14,
He did not write a book by that title.
>18or his letter to Jerome, 166;26, 28 but most esp. 166.6, 10.
Do you mean Letter # 166, 4.10? He does not repudiate Creationism there. He only
states the difficulty it did not remove. But he does the same with Traducianism.
So, as I said, he does not repudiate it here. But he _does_ ask the question you
don't dare to ask, and rashly forbid others to ask, saying:
Begin quote--------------
et dic mihi, si animae singillatim singulis hodieque nascentibus fiunt, ubi in
parvulis peccent, ut indigeant in Sacramento Christi remissione peccati,
peccantes in Adam ex quo caro est propagata peccati : aut si non peccant, qua
iustitia Creatoris ita peccato obligantur alieno, cum exinde propagatis membris
mortalibus inseruntur, ut eas, nisi per Ecclesiam subventum fuerit, damnatio
consequatur
End quote----------
Begin hasty translation--------------
And tell me, if souls are made individually and singly with each birth today,
where do infants sin, who need the remission of sins in the Sacrament of Christ,
sinning in Adam from whose flesh sins are propagated? Or if they do not sin,
with WHAT justice of the Creator they are thus bound to the sin of another, when
they are inserted among mortals from outside, so that hey, unless they are saved
by the Church, inherit damnation?
End hasty translation-------------
So you see, the question he is dealing with here is almost exactly the same as
"Why, then, am I blamed (Rom 9:19)", and Augustine does NOT pretend to have an
answer to it. And he ends the paragraph NOT by repudiating Creationism, but by
ASKING how the difficulty is resolved, saying:
obsecro te, quomodo haec opinio defenditur, qua creduntur animae
non ex illa una primi hominis fieri omnes, sed sicut illa una uni,
ita singulis singulae? (Ep. 166. 4.10)
Or:
I ask you, how can this opinion be defended, in which souls are believed
to be not made from one first man, but as one from one, so individually apiece?
This is a far cry from teaching Traducianism. In fact, he spends the next
several paragraphs (e.g. 5.12, 5.13, 5.15) solving objections to both
Traducianism AND Creationism.
Why, not only is it such a far cry from it, but at the end of the whole letter,
he _admits_ his ignorance concerning this (and several other topics) and _asks_
Jerome to resolve the difficulties, saying:
Quamvis autem desiderem, rogem, votis ardentibus exoptem
et exspectem ut per te mihi Dominus huius rei auferat ignorantiam:
Or:
However much then I lack, I would ask and long for your radiant promise,
and await the Lord to take away my ignorance of this matter through you.
(Ep. 166 9.28)
Why can't you follow Augustine's excellent example and show the same humility?
Why do you always run away from admitting your errors instead?
>Also, how do you counter what he wrote in his letter to Valentinum?
No problem. See below.
>"Infants who have not yet done any works of their own, either good or
>bad, will be condemned on account of original sin alone." (L. 215)
But this does not support you either, considering that both the sentence
immediately before, and that immediately after rebut you: for it says:
Begin quote----------
Sed rursum qui putat, quando ad iudicium Dominus venerit, non iudicari hominem
secundum opera sua, qui iam per aetatem uti potuit libero voluntatis arbitrio,
nihilominus in errore est. Soli enim parvuli qui nondum habent opera propria vel
bona vel mala, secundum solum originale peccatum damnabuntur, quibus per
lavacrum regenerationis non subvenit gratia Salvatoris. Caeteri autem omnes qui
iam utentes libero arbitrio, sua propria peccata originali peccato insuper
addiderunt, si de potestate tenebrarum per gratiam Dei non eruuntur, nec
transferuntur ad regnum Christi 2, non solum secundum originis, verum etiam
secundum propriae voluntatis merita, iudicium reportabunt.
End quote-------------
Begin hasty translation---------
And again those who think, that when the Lord comes for judgment, that men are
not judged according to their WORKS, which now we are still able to do BY FREE
WILL in the current age, are NO LESS IN ERROR. For only those little ones who
do not have their own works -- either good or bad -- are condemned only for
original sin, who did not come by the grace of the Savior to the laver of
regeneration. But all the others, WHO NOW HAVE THE USE OF THEIR FREE WILL, have
their own sins added to original sin, unless they have been freed from the power
of the shadows by the grace of God, AND transferred to the Kingdom of Christ;
not only according to original sin, but also according to their own voluntary
MERITS shall they give account in the judgment.
End translation------------------
Counter it? And why do you think I need to _counter_ it? Are you trying to read
support for Traducianism into this? That will be difficult, now that you see the
immediately surrounding sentences. There is NOTHING to support Traducianism
here.
So finally, Loren, you have accomplished exactly NOTHING with your out of
context Patristic citations. Just as you have done so often before. Why won't
you ever learn from your mistakes? Why is it _so_ hard for you to read IN
CONTEXT, you who bleat so often "context, context, context"?
>> >Personally, I
>> >see the advent of sin being part of the design of the Eternal Decree
>> >inorder that the grace of God might be particularly displayed. Grace
>> >is the overwhelming display of God in the "now" of man.
>>
>> Of course, the problem with this formulation is that not so many are
>> "overwhelmed" by the display; in fact, many doubt the display even exists. So
>> what _did_ you hope to accomplish by repeating _this_ formulation?
>>
>Does it matter whether "here" we are overwhelmed or not?
Well, if it _doesn't_ matter, then _why_ did you brag of being 'overwhelmed'?
> It is in the
>"hereafter" where it will glorify God both for elect and non-elect.
>It will condemn men who rejected His free offer. It will set men to
>song and praise who accepted it even as it does now the angelic realm.
>How shallow are those who are not overwhelmed by what Christ has done
>for us.
Ah, so _this_ is why you bragged of being 'overwhelmed'; to lord it over others.
I should have known. But of course, such obnoxious lording over others is
_typical_ of people who have confused enthusiastic emotionalism with true
worship of God.
> How sad it will be when they stand before Him and have to
>give an account of why they sought silver and gold (I'm not talking
>about money) in this life instead of laying up treasures for
>themselves in the next. But then I suppose you do not see the
>connection.
How sad it will be for you when _you_ hear the words "I never knew you".
>Overwhelmed? Sometimes it drives me to my knees. Sometimes it makes
>me fear His appearing because of my depraved mishandling of such
>magnificient grace.
Only sometimes? So _that_ is your problem;)
Seriously, Loren; every moment you live _without_ this fear is a moment you
waste in delusion.
>But then there are other times when it surrounds
>me in awe and comforts me to think that He_chose_me.
But perhaps if you realized what great burdens always fell upon the chosen in
the OT, you would not consider this so much 'comforting' as 'awesome in
responsibility'. For you repeatedly duck responsibility.
> Overwhelmed?
>Every saint worth his salt should be.
And every _saint_ is. But when _they_ are 'overwhelmed', they are overwhelmed
with the sense of responsibility and unworthiness. Both together, not one at one
time, and the other at another.
> That the unsaved do not only
>further reveals their incapacity to "seek after God" because "there is
>none who understands."
But judging by the way you misquote not only your interlocutors, but also the
Fathers, and even Scripture, I would have to say it is you who the Apostle is
referring to here.
> They do not understand because they do not
>derive their knowledge from God because they are incapable, only being
>self inclined.
As you are .
>You know, the more you argue against this, the more you prove my
>point.
This vain boasting of yours reminds me of an old sci-fi story that reminds me of
your posts, Loren. Now I have seen how you like to refer to sci-fi, so perhaps
you will treat the sci-fi ref as a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go
down;)
I can't remember which magazine had it, but it was a tale about a war that broke
out between Earth and some aliens, where both sides always took exactly the same
strategy, to the amazement of both sides. For from the POV of us terrans, we
were winning, because we were losing fewer men; but from the POV of the aliens,
they were winning because they were losing fewer ships. But both sides were
really bleeding.
It was only when we terrans finally realized that each side was adopting the
optimal strategy given different short-sighted assumptions that a breakthrough
was finally possible; the terrans changed their strategy and this somehow forced
both sides to the peace table (I don't remember the details: it was long ago).
But you have resisted showing that much common sense. You don't realize how
_hollow_ your vain boast above really sounds. You don't realize how _painful_ it
is to read the evidence of your selfish orientation, which you display in the
many ways I outlined above (and others). You don't realize how _obvious_ it is
that such selfishness is INCONSISTENT with knowledge of faith, hope and love.
Banjo was _so_ right to say to you "Get help, Loren". But of course, you will
never do this as long as you can fool yourself with Calvinist blinders.
Loren
>
> No, your 'dynamic' is pure fiction.
>
> > I mentioned that alcoholic
> >drinking water because if he could achieve the same end, he would do
> >so.
>
> So not only is it hypothetical, it is a ridiculous and irrelevant hypothetical.
>
is very relevant even though the illustration was hypothetical. The
will is merely the means. The inclination is the end by which the
means is regulated. God is governed by His holy inclination. He
wills nothing outside of His holiness, nor can He or could He. Like
so, man, having lost his original inclination/governor, can now only
perform works of unrighteousness. Even the RC theology maintains a
quasi agreement with this in their doctrine of infused righteousness,
agreeing that man can not produce his own righteousness aside from
convient grace.
>
> > He is inclined toward the goal of drunkenness.
>
> There you are abusing that term again. I refer, of course, to 'inclination'. But
> you forget: (or are you deliberately sweeping it under the rug): _what_ is the
> drunkard trying to find in drunkenness? Why does he _consistently_ turn to what
> destroys himself, when supposedly he is selfish? Selfish people do not
> _deliberately_ destroy themselves. But drunkards do destroy themselves. Nor do
> they have a monopoly on this blindly self-destructive behavior.
>
was valid and you have added nothing to the discussion other than
disagreement. But in your disagreement you have here only proven my
point. "Deliberately" infers consciousness which often is the
demonstration of the will. Inclination, on the other hand, is not
conscious. In fact, the scriptures tells that fallen men are blind to
their inclination (and to carnal believers). That man has only a
single inclination is demonstrated by the mere fact that Christ came
and died for man.
>
> >The will is subject to that inclination.
>
> No.
>
>
> >And, if he so choses not to drink at
> >all, nothing has changed for he is still inclining toward self,
>
> Not true. If he keeps up that not drinking for long enough, the desire to drink
> loses its force.
No. As I continue to say, you do not understand. The reason he quits
drinking, is unimportant. He may do so simply from peer shame or fear
of getting tossed into jail or a 1000 other reasons. He may
consciously "will", in a particular instance, to decline an offer of
drink, but his orientation is still selfish. The inclination is not
affected. He is still determined and that determination is not God
oriented. He is still the center of his universe and loves himself
supremely. The motive to refuse a drink is selfish be*cause* he still
has no orientation rooted in Godly holiness. To act a contrary way is
nothing more than prudential. He is still selfishly inclined. There
is no regenerated holiness. The volitional act by which he rejected
the drink agrees with the moral quality of his heart. There was no
desire or determination to please God. Inclination cannot be affected
by the will. Fallen man carries out his selfish inclination by his
volition.
>
>Besides: those who learned to quit drinking the _Orthodox_ way
> really _did_ lose the selfish inclination, too. The details are in Khrapovitsky.
>
Inclination can never be effected by the will. Man, having fallen,
can never will to be holy. A man who chooses to commit suicide, after
the fact cannot will to make himself alive. This is both true in the
spiritual realm as it is in the physical realm. Man died when Adam's
inclination self-determined away from God, to his own selfish end.
>
> >whether he does it not to lose face because of some situation, or
> >because he choses to do something else with his money. The point is,
> >his orientation never changes.
>
> But this _simply_ is not true! And yet you claim to have worked with drunkards?
> I am afraid you only hurt them, not helped them.
>
As always, it seems, you offer only negation with no discussion nor an
alternative. Your inclination, it seems, is also selfish.
>
> > It is always to gratify self.
>
> Isn't that why you post, too? Besides: once you switch the topic to
> self-gratification, we are no longer talking about 'inclination', but about
> "amor sui" Yet you never _did_ read the Augustine citations on this topic I gave
> you, did you?
>
I read it before you gave it to me. I quoted it before you did! If
you read his works, you will see little precipitation from a
presupposition that man is able to pull himself up by his boot strap.
Rather, he writes about children dying in their sin and the such.
That hardly argues in your favor.
>
> > This is why 1) the doctrine of total depravity is a given
>
> No, it is not. We have been over this often before, you have never been able to
> give real support for your ignorant claim.
>
"Ignorant." Do you not realize that when you continually *choose* to
use such unedifying words that it betrays the condition of your heart?
"You say you have The Faith? Well your works don't show it!"
>
> No surprise there, though, since you don't even know what Calvin _meant_ by
> "total depravity". Yet again: the word 'total' is _extensive_ not _intensive_.
>
He meant as I have been arguing. That the inclination is wholly
without Godly orientation. He agrees with the normative reading of
Paul's argumentation in Rom 3:10ff. *NONE* *NOT* *NO*, negation 7
times in vv. 10-18 concluding that **EVERY** mouth will be shut.
"ALL sinned and fall short." It is TOTAL because "There is none who
inclines for God." That is Paul's premise.
>
> > and 2) the Law
> >cannot bring forth righteousness. Salvation by grace alone is the
> >imputation of Christ's righteousness extra nos.
>
> Now _this_ Loren, is an excellent example of why I think you post out of the
> desire for self-gratification. For you howl loudly and complain, when _I_ use
> the Latin term "amor sui", yet here you are saying "extra nos".
>
That is because these where the very words that Luther used. He often
used Latin phrases to explain his argument because they were
understood.
>
> I really cannot even imagine a righteous motive for such a blatant display of a
> hypocritical double-standard, so I am lead to the conclusion that you write
> these posts out of the selfish desire to please yourself, likely by making
> yourself appear more pious or learned than others.
>
Again, no discussion.
Again, only negation.
Again, putting down the oppositing view with no counter offer.
No Matthew, I am defending my position. I am talking to someone who
portrays learnedness and piety -you. But after a time it becomes
obvious that when you are unable to counter the arguments being put
forth you are reduced to running off sentences like the one above.
Who is the one who is actually adding to the discussion and who is the
one who merely wishes "blatant display?" I'll let God be the judge of
that. (Jm 3:1)
WHERE is the discussion concerning point #2?
Loren
>
>
> Now _this_ Loren, is an excellent example of why I think you post out of the
> desire for self-gratification. For you howl loudly and complain, when _I_ use
> the Latin term "amor sui", yet here you are saying "extra nos".
>
nos" is understood by you. I haven't a clue who Khrapovitsky, nor
does 99.9% of the readership. At least one can reasonably deduct what
"extra nos" is indicative of.
>
> >It is totally alien
"extra" as in "ET" or "extra-terrestrial."
> >because man's orientation is only and always selfish. He cannot
> >"choose" to do good because his inclination is always toward self,
> >i.e. totally depraved.
>
> Here Augustine contradicts you: for he _clearly_ showed that this self-ward
> inclination is _exactly_ what is destroyed by the spiritual warfare against
> "amor sui".
>
Then why, please tell me, does he conclude, as I have quoted, that
when an infant dies he dies a sinner if he did not agree with the
total depravity of man? Come on, discuss for once.
>
> > The RC idea of the infusion of Christ's
> >righteousness into the sinner to enable him to strive toward a
> >righteous standing before God is anti-biblical. There is NO merit or
> >demerit involved in grace whatsoever.
>
> No, it is your _claim_ here that has no merit.
You can't even honestly illustrate your negation. Poor is the man who
buys his wife flowers only in hope of getting something in return.
Grace is giving without any consideration of debt. Have you never so
given yourself? Have you never anonomously slipped a hundred bucks
under the door of a fellow student who was struggling to meet his
financial obligations to remain in study? Do you tithe anonomously?
Do you have the "inclination" from which such a choice wills to be
made?
>
> Besides: why are you even
> _talking_ about RC theology? You bragged earlier of Clendenin's book on
> Orthodoxy. Didn't the author at -least- explain how our theology differs from
> the RC here? If not, then my previous condemnation of Clendenin was too mild!
>
Above you deride me for using "extra nos" on the pretense that the
readership doesn't understand such termonology. Here you deride me
for writing to an audience larger than yourself. Come on Matthew.
You accuse me of a "a blatant display of a hypocritical
double-standard?"
>
> >> >There is no self
> >> >possibility of an alteration in the bias of the will. Volitionary
> >> >choice acts out of a state of indifference toward the thing chosen.
> >>
> >> Again, your own example disproves this. For the severe alcoholic's desire for
> >> alcohol is ANYTHING BUT 'indifference'.
> >>
> >No. It is not. His inclination toward drunkenness is wholly selfish.
>
> So why are you calling it 'indifference'?
>
This kind of statement belies the fact that you reply before you read
the entire post. You reply only to negate. There is no discussion
with you.
>
> > He doesn't care what it takes to get the job done. All he wants is
> >to get drunk. I've worked with alcoholic's in inner city Chicago.
> >I'm talking about drop out of society bums who panhandle corners to
> >scrape a couple of bucks together to buy the cheapest alcohol they can
> >get. They are totally indifferent to anything and everything except
> >the goal. Again, you seem not to grasp the basics of the dynamic.
>
> No, it is you who do not grasp the basics. If you did grasp it, you would not
> have said _so_ much of what you said! You would also know how wrong it was, by
> considering the analogous situation: how does this drunkards 'indifference'
> differ from the state _you_ would be in yourself, after going without food for a
> week? Yet Christ went for forty days without, and _still_ refused to turn stones
> into bread!
>
That is because He did not self determine an inclination other than to
please God. By bringing up this account, you illustrate that Christ
stood at the very place that Adam did when he could either remain true
in his orientation toward God or he could follow after his wife (self
orientation.) Christ, tested in all points, did not fall from the
holy inclination.
The question often asked, "Could Jesus have sinned?" is readily
answered by this dynamic of "the inclination of the will being the
result of self-determination, not of a volition, because the
inclination is the self-determination viewed objectively." Christ's
was always and only moved spontaneously to the will of the Father as
the supreme end.
John 8:42 ... I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent
Me.
John 15:10 "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love;
just as I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love.
"Abiding" is nothing short of operating out of the regenerated
inclination to please God, for the Christian. For Christ it was
nothing short of delighting to do the will of the Father who sent Him.
"Not my will, but Thine."
>
> >> >To illustrate this I've before used the alcoholic who doesn't care
> >> >whether or not it is wine, whiskey, or for that matter, water, which
> >> >he drinks.
> >>
> >> That's nonsense. Water? Get real, Loren.
> >>
> >> > His goal is only to get drunk.
> >>
> >> And how is he going to get drunk on water???
> >>
> >If water could get him intoxicated, he would drink it.
>
> Again, such a ridiculous hypothetical. All your 'experience' with "society bums"
> has taught you NOTHING if you still believe your ridiculous hypothetical has
> _any_ bearing on the topic. We _all_ drink water. And there is _nothing_ selfish
> about our desire to drink water, when we are thirsty; unless, of course, you are
> talking about before 15:00 on Good Friday;)
>
> Then again, just the fact that you still stoop so low as to call them 'bums'
> also shows you learned nothing.
>
If you had worked with them, you would know that it is their term.
But that you judge me only reveals openly your own thought processes.
>
> >He is
> >indifferent to the means. It is only the end which his will strives
> >for -to satisfy self. I've seen it at its worst. They don't care.
> >And all sinners are addicted to satisfying self in one form or
> >another, even in religion.
>
> No, no, no! If you actually knew what you were talking about, you would have
> known better than to say this. For you bragged of knowing Augustine's
> 'anthropology', yet he _clearly_ contradicts you in Sermon 96 (on "amor sui"),
> where he says:
>
> For to love o.s. is to do one's own will. But prefer instead God's will;
> learn what it is to love o.s., NOT in loving o.s. (Serm 96 2.2)
>
> The great Augustine would NEVER have commanded us to do the impossible, to
> change our own inclination, unless he knew what you still blindly deny: it _is_
> possible, by the grace of God. But "to love o.s., NOT in loving o.s." is
> _definitely_ a major change of inclination.
>
Then you align yourself with the RC doctrine of infused of grace.
There is no third way here. Either the Spirit of God works
immediately or mediately. That God is working in us "both to will and
to do" indicates that it is immediate. The sinner does not, because
he cannot, choose or resolve to incline himself to God. Rather, God
the Spirit immediately inclines him "to will and to do." In His
regeneration, God determines the will by renewing it. In the case of
Adam's apostasy, he determined himself to evil without any immediate
operation of God. But by grace, fallen man is immediately regenerated
in order than he might believe, both by accent and resting upon that
which was done for him, "extra." Righteousness which justifies is
entirely outside of man.
I really don't care what you think Augustine states, if in fact your
conclusion is in agreement with what he really meant. I only care
what God declares. I quoted Augustine to show you that even the
fathers disagreed with you, not that they are authoratative in every
instance. There is only one unquestioned authority given to man, sola
scriptura.
Loren
>
of having no hope of salvation. For if those who "fall into
Calvinism, they _remain_ depraved" then Calvinist are hell bound
according to you. Strange that you are so antithetical about this.
>
> >Here is where Protestants separate themselves from the catholic
> >traditions which maintain that only a part of man fell.
>
> What? No. Where _do_ you get this nonsense? More important, where do you get the
> tragic delusion, that you can be doing God's work by repeating such slander?
>
> And yes, it _is_ slander: for it is _clear_ from Catholic sources that they have
> long taught that both body and soul were deeply wounded by the Fall. Tanquerey,
> for example describes the wounds of the body as "passibility and mortality" and
> the four wounds of the soul as "ignorance, by with the mind is _so_ weakened by
> comparison with its former state that it knows the truth only with difficulty,
> and easily falls into error", and "malice, in which the will is prone to evil,
> and with difficulty overcomes vices and cultures virtues", "weakness of the
> irascible appetite" and "concupiscence".
> (Tanquerey, Brevior Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae #681). So what part is left
> unharmed?
>
consciousness. And "in consequence a large measure of autonomy is
assigned to the human consciouness as over against the consciousness
of God. . . . It follows that Roman has too high a notion of the moral
consciousness of fallen man. According to Thomas, fallen man is not
very dissimilar from Adam in paradise. He says that while the sinner
needs grace for more things than did Adam, he does not need grace
more." (Christian Thiestic Ethics, Van Till. p. 29)
"And thus in the state of perfect naute man needs a gratuitous
strength super-added to natural strength for one reason, viz. in order
to do and wish supernatural good; but for two reasons, in the state
of corrupt nature, viz., in order to be healed, and further more in
order to carry out works of supernatural virtue, which are
meritorious. Beyond this, in both states man needs the Divine help,
that he may be moved to act well". (Summa Theologia. Vol 8. p 326)
So you are simply wrong. Aquinas is more telling what the RC position
is than Augustine. Aquinas did not so much see the ethical problem of
man being one of ethical obedience as it was on of finitude. Here the
Reformer simply disagree. Man does not "tend naturally to evil"
because he is finite. He does so because he is depraved by nature.
Aquinas maintains that man is in need of grace because he is a
creature regardless of whether or not he is a sinner. Thus, God owes
man grace, at least to some extent. "and man does not become totally
depraved when he does not make such use of the grace given him as to
keep himself from sin entirely. For in any case the act of his free
will puts him naturally in grave danger. Fallen man is therefore only
partly guilty and only partly to blame. He retains much of the same
ethical power that man had in paradise." (CTE, p.30). i.e If man by
his will caused his fall, then equally, man by his will can recover
from it (when, by the grace of God, Christ's rightousness is infused
into him."
I am not wrong in this point. It would be wrong, as many conclude,
that RCism teaching salvation by works. It does no such thing.
However, because RCism teaching that the state of justifying grace is
habtus, "in" us, able to increase or decrease or for that matter, even
to be lost, works is most definitely part of the formula. The
Reformed view recaptures the NT teaching that salvation is gained by a
work wholly outside of man. Man is justified by a declaration of God
which can neither increase nor decrease because it is for grace, not
of works. That is, there is no merit involved. And because there is
no merit involved, neither can there be demerit. "THere is now
therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus," for we
have entered into His rest, "having offered one sacrifice for sins for
all time, sat down at the right hand of God.... for by one offering
He HAS perfectED for all time those who are being sanctified."
> >>
> >1) Even when the believing elect, full of the Spirit, say, "I love
> >Thee, God, my strength", it is said with the taint of sin.
>
> So close, and yet so far!
>
> > Only on
> >the otherside of the grave will the elect finally be ABLE to worship
> >in a true state of holiness.
>
> Again, so close, and yet so far! For when I read your words here and immediately
> above, I am _immediately_ reminded of the humility of Sts. Basil the Great and
> Ephrem the Syrian, who showed us what these words must _really_ mean. But no
> matter how hard I try, I cannot believe that you mean the same as the great
> saints did!
>
And no matter how hard you try, you fail to exhibit their humility.
>
> >2) But he cannot do that unless God first works a work of grace, i.e.
> >regeneration. Man fell in the garden. Plain and simple. The OT
> >teaches that all sin must be atoned for and that even the high priest
> >needed atonement. There is no record of any man not needing
> >atonement. And because all men were resident in Adam, when he fell,
> >the race fell.
> >
> >I really do understand your objection.
> No, you do not. On the contrary: the only thing you understand is a straw man
> you have set up to protect yourself from facing the unpleasant truth; it is your
> entire theology that is built on straw.
>
And if for argument sake, lets say you are correct, it is a straw man,
who's fault is that? You never declare/disclose EOC doctrine. All
you do is negate what others write. For instance, in all this long
lengthy post, where once did you ever openly and didactically express
the EO position? Just once. Please, show me.
I understand and appreciate apophatic theology at certain points.
However, the internet is cataphatic. And to never deviate from the
apophatic is in truth, gnostic in its tendency.
>
> > You have to object, that is,
> >your system requires it. For if total depravity is admitted, then
> >salvation is gained via that which is outside of man, not that which
> >is accomplished inside of man, thus condemning the entire religious
> >system which supposes otherwise. Oh I understand why you are so
> >opposed to sola fide, sola gratia and sola scriptura. It is all
> >systematically tied in with you objection.
>
> The only thing 'systematic' here is your systematic misreading not only of my
> posts, but of the Fathers, and even of Scripture.
>
Again, not discussion. No open, positive notation. This isn't
apophatic, it just plain being obtuse.
>
> >> > therefore the "will" is not free in the sense that it can
> >> >change its inclination for the effect can never reach around and touch
> >> >its cause.
> >>
> >> But that is an uninteresting sense of 'free'. Did anyone in this thread claim
> >> _that_ sense of 'freedom' for the will?
> >
> >You do this every time you yourself object to total depravity.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> > RC's
> >do it every time they make justification a process and not a singular
> >declarative act of God -outside of man. You continually thumb your
> >nose at the systematization of theology, but the diversity of doctrine
> >is unified. It is all systematic and relational.
> >>
> >>Besides: by ascetic self-denial, the
> >> willer _can_ use the disciplining of his will to change even his inclination.
> >>
> >No he cannot. Paul attest to this even of the believer "in Christ" in
> >Rom 7.
>
> No, he says no such thing. As I have already reminded you MANY times, it is
> controversial whether or not Paul even _is_ referring to the believer. He could
> be referring to the plight of man _before_ baptism.
>
No. It is not controversial. The book of Romans is logically
progressive. Paul starts out with condemnation, then proceeds into
justification, and then on to sanctification. Sanctification only
involves the believer. So Rom 7, following after Rom 5:1, is speaking
of the believer who has been justified, who has been regenerated, who
now has the new inclination to please God, but does not have the
power. Rom 8 teaches that the power is the Spirit.
The controversy only comes with those who come to the text with
predetermined will to be read into it what they will. Rom's 8 makes
little sense if Rom 7 "O wretched man that I am" is where all
Christians stand from time to time, desiring, wishing, inclining to do
good, but willfully not yielding to the Spirit and therefore not
having the power to do so. "Nothing good dwells in me" can only be
recognized if one is already regenerated for "in whose case the god of
this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might
not see...(2 Cor. 4:4 )
>
> This ambiguity is exactly WHY you need to stifle your pride and submit to the
> opinions of the Fathers on these verses. Otherwise you will never overcome your
> fantastic pride of mind.
>
In this case, ambiguity is self-determined. 7:15-25 clearly and
logically refers to the believer who finds in himself the inability to
over come sin which continues to reside within him. Only the
regenerated man can experience the dual inclinations. One being
sinful. One seeking to please God. Even baby Christian's are aware
of this truth.
Charles Hedrick
not succeeding. There's too much between them for me to be exactly sure
what the issues are.
However one thing that is going on is that Loren is asserting that
humans can't get rid of the inclination to sin, and Matthew is
objecting.
What I *hope* Loren means is that they can't get rid of the
inclination to sin on their own, and that even with the help of the
Holy Spirit the battle won't be entirely over until we join Christ
after death.
But surely the Holy Spirit does help us change our inclination. The
Christian life is based on repentance. Repentance is, among other
things, a step in the death of self, something we can do in
Christ. After all, in baptism Christ's death is made active in us as a
death to sin.
Luther and Calvin never meant to detract people from the battle
against sin. Luther's protest started because he saw the Church as
teaching that one could be saved purely by doing external acts -- and
not even good works in the usual sense. His concern was that people
thought they could do these things, but avoid any real change.
Justification by faith does not mean that we give up on making any
change, because we think we're the elect. Faith is being engrafted
into Christ, and having the center of our lives transformed by him.
This is Jesus' method: make the tree good, and the fruit will
follow. But it is also subject to Jesus' warning: the tree is known by
its fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and
thrown into the fire.
The best-known writings of Luther and Calvin condemn "works", because
what they mean are purely external works that don't reflect any real
Christian regeneration. They saw the Church of their time as doing
things that were equivalent to what Paul preached against in
Romans. But Paul wasn't opposing good works. That's clear from the
rest of his letters. He was opposed to "works of the Law," i.e.
systems that depended upon external acts that do not reflect an
actual transformation of our being.
What one emphasizes depends upon the context: Luther and Calvin saw
specific dangers in their time. I think what they did was right, in
that context. But the dangers now present themselves in a different
form. For some (though surely not all) justification by faith has
itself turned into the very kind of thing that both Paul and Luther
were opposed to: a confidence that in "accepting Christ," we won't
have to die with him. Again, we have replaced actual regeneration
based on dying with Christ and being recreated by him with a religious
system.
This whole discussion seems to be a model of how not to talk with
members of other Christian traditions. Matthew is so convinced that
the Reformed tradition is apostate that he'd argue with Calvin if he
said that the sky is blue. Loren has a tendency to write from a
sufficiently hardcore Reformed perspective that people in other
traditions may not recognize points of contact that are actually
present.
Loren
> >(Having Christ's righteousness imparted from without, extra
> >nos). Apart from yielding to the power of the Spirit, man cannot,
> >being completely unable to will to do anything outside of his natural
> >disposition which is always self oriented. He may do great external
> >deeds of "righteousness" but inwardly it is self serving, seeking some
> >sort of praise or merit from either man or God. Other than his sin,
> >the only thing man brings before God are his empty hands. If it is
> >all from Him, through Him and to Him, it rules out any thing self
> >oriented.
>
> "self oriented", yes. But that does NOT rule out the contribution of the free
> will in submission to God. How many times do I have to remind you of this? Why
> do you insist on repeating the same fallacy of composition?
>
Again, it is your failure to understand the dynamic involved. We are
certainly called to "yield" to the Spirit which involves necessarily a
conscious choice. Yet it is not ourselves who perform works of
righteousness. It is God. We will to be the receptacle, the vehicle
through which He may operate. He is the efficient cause.
>
> > Man was alienated from God in the garden. He was
> >originally created inclined toward God, deriving everything from Him.
> >After the fall, his only inclination was toward self, deriving
> >everything from self.
>
> So you love to repeat. But I can't believe you really understand even your own
> words here. For you have _still_ not answered the question: if before, his
> inclination was solely God-ward, how did it make the transition to being
> self-ward?
>
And repeatedly I have answered you, but you refuse to accept that
answer.
Adam's sinful inclination was the result of self-determination, not of
a volitional act. Adam, in the act of apostasy, did not make a choice
between two contraries, between God and creature, to neither of which
was he yet inclined. Yet he passed or "lapsed" from the original
inclination into apostate inclination from one self-determination to
another. One moment in time he was wholly inclined to please God, the
next he was wholly inclined to please self. Obviously, for several
reason, God's holiness the most prominent, such a fall of the will
cannot be accounted for by an antecedent choice from an indifferent
state of the will. Man was created perfect and yet mutable. The
power of self-determination to evil is implied in the mutable holiness
of a creature who is not self-sustaining and omnipotent.
I feel one of the principle errors is failure to note apostasy to be a
*de*ficiency.
>
> What really amazes me about Calvinists, Loren, is that Calvinists, and even
> non-Calvinists who have carelessly allowed themselves to be poisoned by
> Calvinist influence, can so glibly condemn others for this 'selfish end' even as
> they pursue their _own_ selfish ends _so_ much more blatantly and obnoxiously.
>
I wasn't condemning. Why would you conclude, actually, presume this?
Will you not allow for a mere record of the fact? Besides,
Christian's recognize within themselves this inclination toward
pleasing self. Either you have forgotten or are not aware of the fact
that prior to conversion, though everyone deals with guilt, none
operate outside of the orientation toward self. It is only from the
perspective of having the Spirit reside within us, having the
illumination of both the heart and the scriptures, does one realize
the extent of the fall orienting man soley toward self. Not to
recognize this can only indicate one of two things. Either you have
never been converted, or having been, one is operating in the control
of the flesh. The light of the gospel is simply unaccessible to those
who reside within the darkness of death.
>
> But why shouldn't the readers of this NG assume that this is _exactly_ what you
> do in your posts? After all, surely it is out of such selfish orientation that
> you persistently "talk past" your interlocutor. Surely such selfishness explains
> why you give reading homework to others, yet _never_ read Augustine for yourself
> -- even as you boast of knowing his anthropology (which boast is clearly
> groundless). Surely such selfishness explains the gross double-standard you
> display by whining when I say "amor sui", but then yourself misusing "extra
> nos".
>
Still, you do not discuss. Still, you do not add to the discussion,
only condemn and detract. Are you too an accuser of the breathren?
I'd didn't misuse "extra nos." If you don't undestand it nor its
source, then don't accuse others of misusing it.
> >This is the danger of religion where
> >"good" works afford the worker some measure of comfort in thinking
> >something is being accomplished and merits are being won.
>
> The _danger_ is real. But this is one of the temptations in the spiritual life;
> it is avoided only by throwing down your weapons and running away from the
> battle the Lord calls us to.
>
> But the real tragedy, Loren, is that anyone deceived into following _your_
> theology will do _exactly_ this: run away.
>
Your first paragraph here offered a ray of hope of actual discussion,
an opening for community. But why must you always descend into
ridicule and belittling? Is this the spirit of "with gentleness
correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them
repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth"? If you are a
leader in spiritual knowledge, then shouldn't you also be a leader by
example and not in word only?
>
> > In the
> >final analysis, it is all selfish, thus Christ's own statement,
> >"Depart from me. I never knew you." What do you think "knew" refers
> >to -conscious awareness? Hopefully not.
>
> I am well aware of the wide semantic range of "to know" in NT Greek, which
> imitates the Semitic languages here (as often). If _you_ were so aware, you
> would know how your own refusal to follow Him into battle shows that He does not
> 'know' you.
>
And does this not further evidence a lack of spiritual emphathy.
"You" makes it personal. Underscoring it, "_you_" deliberately makes
it even more personal. It is a fiery dart and nothingless. "Your own
refusal to follow Him into battle" means what? "He does not 'know'
you" means what? Is this your idea or the Spirit's revelation of just
what it means to "be kind to all, able to teach, patient when
wronged"?
>
> >This is true even of the believer who has been born again. Even after
> >our regeneration, even true works of righteousness done in the Spirit
> >are pitiful and selfish.
>
> Oh, no. If they are "true works of righteousness done in the Spirit", then they
> are neither pitiful nor selfish. But perhaps you do not know this because it is
> so completely outside your own experience.
>
And you say you know the fathers. You may know their words but do you
know their heart? Was Isaiah a common sinner. Was it "completely
outside" his experience? Yet what did he do when God revealed
Himself? What was this prophet of God's confession? "Woe is me, for
I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips." And what of John,
the "beloved disciple?" ""And when I say Him, I fell at His feet as a
dead man." Does this speak of worthiness? Rather, it too speaks to
all works being both pitiful nd selfish.
> >Sure, they may for the most part be
> >unselfish and completely desirious of pleasing God, but even so, that
> >is selfish because we cannot escape the old nature which is always
> >self serving.
>
> YOU can't. But that is because you threw down your weapons. Or is it because you
> never picked them up?
>
Why beat around the bush, Matthew? Why not come right out and let
your true emotions be revealed? Why veil them?
>
> > That is why we cast our crowns at Christ's feet. Even
> >the rewards we win at His judgment seat are acknowledged as something
> >He accomplished in us dispite ourselves.
> >
> >You may be very knowledgeable about the writings of the fathers and
> >knowledgeable about religious particulars, but you seem to be naive as
> >to the state of man.
>
> Well, it may seem that way to you. But that is because you _still_ show that
> same self-ward orientation in your posts, about which I complained so long ago
> when I _first_ observed that you have the foul and offensive habit of "talking
> past" your interlocutor.
>
> Now I admit, blatant "talking past" is now rarer, but you _still_ have the
> 'inclination', just like the example you yourself gave of the drunkard who still
> wants to drink.
>
> How do I know this? Because you are _still_ presuming to know what you cannot
> yet know, and insisting on reading me as an RC not an Orthodox. The distinction
> _still_ eludes you, yet you don't have the guts to admit it and learn it.
>
Why do you continue to think that I speak only to an audience of one?
Why do you continue to think that everything ever written is oriented
toward you? And why should I not confuse the two when you refuse
clarification and doctrinal explicity?
>
> Yes, I think he did not understand. After all, the alternative to believing he
> did not understand is to assume he really meant to spawn the deception and
> turmoil of the Reformation. And even I won't attribute _that_ much evil to
> Luther.
>
Perhaps it is time to again broach the subject in this NG as to
whether or not to differentiate between SRC-Protestant and
SRC-Catholic. In this lengthy rebutal, you have made no effort to
hide your contempt and utter hatred toward, not only Reformed
theology, but to those who maintain that it is the correct
interpretation of the scriptural salvation. Perhaps it is best to
just separate as the East did from the West nearly 2 millennia ago.
"East is East and West is West and the twain shall never meet" or so
it appears.
Mark Adkins
>
> >I don't believe that sentient beings will to evil.
>
> Well, so? A lot of us could respond with, "And from _my_ own direct, personal
> experience as a sentient being, I _do_ know that sentient beings really do
> "will to evil".
>
> So how can you answer that ?
>
> [snip]
Very easily: you are not a sentient being. You are a figment of
my imagination. The fact that you appear to be independent
and self-willed is not good evidence, since the same can be
said of dream-figures in sleeping dreams.
Mark Adkins
> Mechanical causality, materialism and so on are *not* merely a belief.
> Instead, modern life/medical sciences are based on it and, most
> importantly, it *works*.
Science, modern or ancient, is dream-nonsense. It doesn't work.
The appearance that it does it part of the dream, and it is an
appearance which has plenty of exceptions: more and more the longer
I live. Every day of this "life" I experience "miracles"
(suspensions in the so-called principles of modern science).
Science does not stand up to simple logical analysis. To
demonstrate that would require a much longer message than I
am willing to post here. But the flaws are fundamental and
ineluctible.
Mark Adkins
My "theory" is often proven, by observations of "physically
impossible" things. And in fact, I have -- inadvertently --
stepped out in front of traffic (a fast-turning vehicle). It
disappeared. Other "people" looked surprised, but said
nothing. I don't know what would happen if I willfully
stepped in front of traffic, at this rather early point
in my "evolution". Ideas, including erroneous ideas,
seem to have an inertia (pardon my newtonian reference)
of their own, and in a pseudo-reality in which ideas can
influence physical manifestations, and the possible risks
are unknown to me, it doesn't seem prudent to do that.
Matthew Johnson
>Matthew Johnson <matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:<i6WTc.5398$Kf4....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
>> In article <l_VSc.32165$114....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, Loren says...
>>
>
>> >(Having Christ's righteousness imparted from without, extra
>> >nos). Apart from yielding to the power of the Spirit, man cannot,
>> >being completely unable to will to do anything outside of his natural
>> >disposition which is always self oriented. He may do great external
>> >deeds of "righteousness" but inwardly it is self serving, seeking some
>> >sort of praise or merit from either man or God. Other than his sin,
>> >the only thing man brings before God are his empty hands. If it is
>> >all from Him, through Him and to Him, it rules out any thing self
>> >oriented.
>>
>> "self oriented", yes. But that does NOT rule out the contribution of the free
>>will in submission to God. How many times do I have to remind you of this? >>Why
>>do you insist on repeating the same fallacy of composition?
>>
>Again, it is your failure to understand the dynamic involved.
Easy for you to claim, impossible to prove, since it is false. As I have said
before (and will repeat as necessary), your 'dynamic' is a fiction.
>We are
>certainly called to "yield" to the Spirit which involves necessarily a
>conscious choice.
But this is where you hide your failure to follow Christ. It is MUCH MORE than
"conscious choice" we are called to; it is WORK, even HEAVY LABOR. That is _why_
it is compared to heavy field labor (Mat 20:1-16, Pro 24:27,30), digging for
lost treasure (Pro 2:4), and struggle (Eph 6:12) and warfare (Eph 6:11).
>Yet it is not ourselves who perform works of righteousness.
Wrong. It is us.
> It is God.
We _attribute_ the works to Him, NOT because we had no part in doing them, but
because even the mere ability to do them comes from Him. But we must labor to do
them, or they don't get done. No passivity here!
>We will to be the receptacle, the vehicle through which He may operate.
This description is FAR too passive to be realistic.
> He is the efficient cause.
This distinction between 'efficient' and 'formal' etc. cause is Aristotelian,
not Biblical. This would not be a problem, except that YOU are the one who
bleats "sola scriptura".
>> > Man was alienated from God in the garden. He was
>> >originally created inclined toward God, deriving everything from Him.
>> >After the fall, his only inclination was toward self, deriving
>> >everything from self.
>>
>> So you love to repeat. But I can't believe you really understand even
>> your own
>> words here. For you have _still_ not answered the question: if before, his
>> inclination was solely God-ward, how did it make the transition to being
>> self-ward?
>>
>And repeatedly I have answered you, but you refuse to accept that
>answer.
You call the gibberish below an _answer_? I don't.
>Adam's sinful inclination was the result of self-determination, not of
>a volitional act.
But this _is_ gibberish. 'Self-determination'? In the only admissable sense of
'self-determination', it describes _Adam_ himself as a whole, NOT his will, nor
his 'inclination' (whatever that really is: do you mean PROAIRESIS, GNWMH or
DIAQESIS?).
So as you have _often_ done, you are merely hiding sloppy thinking behind vague,
ambiguous language. That is why I _deny_ that this is an 'answer'. And I have
asked the parenthetical question above before, too. And I still have no answer.
>Adam, in the act of apostasy, did not make a choice
>between two contraries, between God and creature, to neither of which
>was he yet inclined.
But this is wrong, too. He _did_ make a choice between God and creature. Namely,
He made the choice between keeping the eye of his soul always directed Godward
and directing the gaze of that same eye to created things, especially to
himself.
Thus, as St. Basil the Great said (Quod Deus non est Auctor Malorum):
Begin quote---------
Once, Adam was upon high, not in space, but in choice; he was upon high as soon
as he received a soul, looked up upon heaven, and delighted with the things he
saw there, falling in love with the Benefactor, Who gave him the enjoyment of
eternal life, established for him the comforts of Paradise, gave him authority
in the likeness of Angels, made him a neighbor of Archangels and hearer of the
divine voice. In addition to all this, he found himself under the protection of
God and enjoyed His blessings, soon he had his fill of all this, and as if
growing proud of his own fullness, he preferred apparent beauty for the fleshly
eyes to the beauty of the mind, and placed fulness of the belly higher than
spiritual joys [T: this is why the temptation was presented in the form of a
fruit to eat]. Soon he became outside Paradise, outside that blessed life, being
made evil not by necessity, but by senselessness.
(http://www.pagez.ru/lsn/0082.php)
>Yet he passed or "lapsed" from the original
>inclination into apostate inclination from one self-determination to
>another.
But that 'passing' or 'lapsing' is possible only if the original inclination
FAILS to hold!
>One moment in time he was wholly inclined to please God, the
>next he was wholly inclined to please self.
And what about between those two moments? THAT is what my question is about. But
you passed over it in silence. So no, you have NOT answered it. Not at all.
That in a nutshell, Loren, is why I still have to object to your use of
'inclination' as a smoke-screen to hide your failure to think realistically
about volition.
>Obviously, for several
>reason, God's holiness the most prominent, such a fall of the will
>cannot be accounted for by an antecedent choice from an indifferent
>state of the will.
'Obviously'? No, Loren. Why, it is far from obvious what this pious-sounding
gobbledy-gook could even MEAN.
>Man was created perfect and yet mutable. The
>power of self-determination to evil is implied in the mutable holiness
>of a creature who is not self-sustaining and omnipotent.
But then that "mutable holiness" would in turn imply the the original
'inclination' WAS changeable. But this is what you have always denied. Besides:
if the 'mutability' included the possibility of _such_ a fall, why, oh why,
would we want to call it 'perfect'?
>I feel one of the principle errors is failure to note apostasy to be a
>*de*ficiency.
Well, that "principle[sic] error" would not be mine; I already showed by
Augustine and Basil quotes that evil is a deficiency, it has no essence of its
own. If anyone, it is you who still assumes it has one.
>> What really amazes me about Calvinists, Loren, is that Calvinists, and even
>> non-Calvinists who have carelessly allowed themselves to be poisoned by
>> Calvinist influence, can so glibly condemn others for this 'selfish end'
>> even as they pursue their _own_ selfish ends _so_ much
>> more blatantly and obnoxiously.
>>
>I wasn't condemning.
Yes, you were. But I knew you would try to wriggle out of it, just like those
who claim that they "judge the sin, not the sinner", when they are really doing
both.
>Why would you conclude, actually, presume this?
Because you really _do_ do it. And then you hide the fact with specious
equivocation about 'discernment'.
>Will you not allow for a mere record of the fact?
You never _do_ give a "mere record of fact", because you always choose such
strongly emotionally colored language to describe it.
>Besides,
>Christian's recognize within themselves this inclination toward
>pleasing self. Either you have forgotten or are not aware of the fact
>that prior to conversion, though everyone deals with guilt, none
>operate outside of the orientation toward self.
And as long as you continue to deny what Augustine wrote about "amor sui", you
too will continue to operate only within the orientation towards self.
>It is only from the
>perspective of having the Spirit reside within us, having the
>illumination of both the heart and the scriptures, does one realize
>the extent of the fall orienting man soley toward self.
But since the Spirit does not lead a man to despair of ever serving God, it is
not the _Spirit_ who teaches that even in this life, the Christian's orientation
is "wholly selfish". But you _do_ teach this.
> Not to
>recognize this can only indicate one of two things. Either you have
>never been converted, or having been, one is operating in the control
>of the flesh. The light of the gospel is simply unaccessible to those
>who reside within the darkness of death.
That is why I keep telling you to come out of Calvinist darkness;)
>> But why shouldn't the readers of this NG assume that this is _exactly_
>> what you do in your posts? After all, surely it is out of such
>> selfish orientation that you persistently "talk past" your
>> interlocutor. Surely such selfishness explains why you give
>> reading homework to others, yet _never_ read Augustine for yourself
>> -- even as you boast of knowing his anthropology (which boast is clearly
>> groundless). Surely such selfishness explains the gross double-standard you
>> display by whining when I say "amor sui", but then yourself misusing "extra
>> nos".
>>
>Still, you do not discuss.
Not true. It is you who refused to discuss by claiming such exalted knowledge of
Augustine's 'anthropology', while discounting what he said about "amor sui". Nor
is this the only example of your devious means of avoiding discussion.
> Still, you do not add to the discussion,
>only condemn and detract. Are you too an accuser of the breathren?
Hardly. You will hear from _that_ accuser later. But if you had heeded Pro
18:17, you would not be hearing my 'accusations'.
>I'd didn't misuse "extra nos."
Yes, you did. 'Extrinsecus' would be far more precise, though the dogma would
still be wrong. So if that really was Luther's misuse and not yours, I guess he
wasn't as good a Latinist as I thought he was;)
>If you don't undestand it nor its
>source, then don't accuse others of misusing it.
But your premise is false here. I did understand it. You misused it, just as you
misused the Augustine quotes, dreaming that they supported your outlandish and
ignorant claim that Augustine was a Traducianist.
>> >This is the danger of religion where
>> >"good" works afford the worker some measure of comfort in thinking
>> >something is being accomplished and merits are being won.
>>
>> The _danger_ is real. But this is one of the temptations in the
>> spiritual life;
>> it is avoided only by throwing down your weapons and running away from the
>> battle the Lord calls us to.
>>
>> But the real tragedy, Loren, is that anyone deceived into following _your_
>> theology will do _exactly_ this: run away.
>>
>Your first paragraph here offered a ray of hope of actual discussion,
>an opening for community. But why must you always descend into
>ridicule and belittling?
Well, if it isn't the pot calling the kettle black! You are the king of
belittling in this NG, Loren. You belittle with your hypocritical
double-standards, you belittle everyone who does not share your Reform
eisegesis. Indeed: it is your frequent practice of belittlement (especially
while failing to realize you are doing it) that shows that you _have_ been
running away from genuine spiritual warfare for years now.
Besides: even if I were guilty of "ridicule and belittling", it would NOT be
here. Seriously, I expected to be accused of that for a completely _different_
part of this thread;)
>Is this the spirit of "with gentleness
>correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them
>repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth"?
Practice this yourself some time, instead of picking fights with Bart and me,
and perhaps someday, you will be able to recognize when people practice it with
you.
> If you are a
>leader in spiritual knowledge, then shouldn't you also be a leader by
>example and not in word only?
You have been given ample opportunity to learn from true leaders in spiritual
knowledge; why did you _think_ I referred you to Chrysostom, Augustine and
Lossky (among others)? Yet you squandered that opportunity, turning to
groundless accusations and bickering instead.
>> > In the
>> >final analysis, it is all selfish, thus Christ's own statement,
>> >"Depart from me. I never knew you." What do you think "knew" refers
>> >to -conscious awareness? Hopefully not.
>>
>> I am well aware of the wide semantic range of "to know" in NT Greek, which
>> imitates the Semitic languages here (as often). If _you_ were so aware, you
>> would know how your own refusal to follow Him into battle
>> shows that He does not 'know' you.
>>
>And does this not further evidence a lack of spiritual emphathy.
Yes, it does not.
>"You" makes it personal.
You are deliberately hiding the facts, aren't you? It was _you_ who "made it
personal" by claiming _I_ didn't know what 'know' meant; my using and
underscoring "you" was _in response_ to your making it personal.
Stop complaining when people treat you the way you treat others.
>Underscoring it, "_you_" deliberately makes
>it even more personal. It is a fiery dart and nothingless. "Your own
>refusal to follow Him into battle" means what? "He does not 'know'
>you" means what? Is this your idea or the Spirit's revelation of just
>what it means to "be kind to all, able to teach, patient when
>wronged"?
Well, no, it is not my idea of it. But since you have been doing the same to
others for some time now, I had good enough reason to think it was yours;)
>> >This is true even of the believer who has been born again. Even after
>> >our regeneration, even true works of righteousness done in the Spirit
>> >are pitiful and selfish.
>>
>> Oh, no. If they are "true works of righteousness done in the Spirit",
>> then they are neither pitiful nor selfish. But perhaps you do not know
>> this because it is
>> so completely outside your own experience.
>And you say you know the fathers. You may know their words but do you
>know their heart? Was Isaiah a common sinner. Was it "completely
>outside" his experience? Yet what did he do when God revealed
>Himself? What was this prophet of God's confession? "Woe is me, for
>I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips." And what of John,
>the "beloved disciple?" ""And when I say Him, I fell at His feet as a
>dead man." Does this speak of worthiness? Rather, it too speaks to
>all works being both pitiful nd selfish.
Yes, I _do_ know the Fathers. And I know that they disagreed with your
description here. Then again, so does Scripture. No, Loren, Isaiah's
'confession' had next to _nothing_ to do with 'works', and it _certainly_ did
NOT imply that "all works are pitiful and selfish". Oh, no. On the contrary: a
much more plausible reading would be that even when works are NOT 'selfish', the
doer of them is still humble before the Lord. Knowing and doing _that_ is
knowing the heart of the Fathers. But you consistently refuse to do this, so you
remain very alien to their heart.
>> >Sure, they may for the most part be
>> >unselfish and completely desirious of pleasing God, but even so, that
>> >is selfish because we cannot escape the old nature which is always
>> >self serving.
>>
>> YOU can't. But that is because you threw down your weapons. Or is it
>> because you never picked them up?
>>
>Why beat around the bush, Matthew? Why not come right out and let
>your true emotions be revealed? Why veil them?
What? And surpass you in doing what I hate? No, Loren, it is not _I_ who will
draw this thread so far off topic. I leave that loathsome deed to you.
[snip]
>> Now I admit, blatant "talking past" is now rarer, but you _still_ have the
>> 'inclination', just like the example you yourself gave of the
>> drunkard who still wants to drink.
>>
>> How do I know this? Because you are _still_ presuming to know what you cannot
>> yet know, and insisting on reading me as an RC not an Orthodox.
>> The distinction
>> _still_ eludes you, yet you don't have the guts to admit it and learn it.
>>
>Why do you continue to think that I speak only to an audience of one?
Because I underestimated your inclination to inappropriate grandstanding?
>Why do you continue to think that everything ever written is oriented
>toward you?
I don't think this. But I was answering a post _directly_ addressed to me. So I
_did_ have the right to expect that it was 'oriented' to me, not to the lurkers,
except indirectly. But I suppose I should not be surprised if this distinction
between 'direct' and 'indirect' is completely lost on you. After all, you _rely_
on missing such distinctions (while reading Scripture) to prop up your
eisegesis!
But it should _not_ be lost on you. You have been squandering your time in this
NG shamelessly if you still do not know the distinction. That is why you must
hear many rebukes before you can hear with open ears the 'discussion' you
_claim_ to be so hungry for.
>And why should I not confuse the two when you refuse
>clarification and doctrinal explicity?
Because your premise is false. Rather, the truth is just as Bart complained
about you: you violently resist learning anything you don't already 'know'. It
is _you_ who consistently avoids clarification and doctrinal explicity[sic] --
as you avoid all true dialog.
>> Yes, I think he did not understand. After all, the alternative to
>> believing he
>> did not understand is to assume he really meant to spawn the deception and
>> turmoil of the Reformation. And even I won't attribute _that_ much evil to
>> Luther.
>>
>Perhaps it is time to again broach the subject in this NG as to
>whether or not to differentiate between SRC-Protestant and
>SRC-Catholic.
Again, you express your fervent wish to avoid dialog. For what else would be
accomplished by such a division? Nothing. You just want to turn the NG into an
evangelical/protestant playpen.
>In this lengthy rebutal, you have made no effort to
>hide your contempt and utter hatred toward, not only Reformed
>theology, but to those who maintain that it is the correct
>interpretation of the scriptural salvation.
Nonsense. Isn't it you evangelicals who insist that you can separate "hate the
sin" from "hate the sinner"? Why, then, are you so determined to deny this claim
to others?
>Perhaps it is best to
>just separate as the East did from the West nearly 2 millennia ago.
But you don't understand _that_ long ago separation, either. If you did, you
would not show such indecent haste to repeat the mistake.
>"East is East and West is West and the twain shall never meet" or so
>it appears.
This thread has run aground on the same sandbar your recent thread with Bart ran
aground on: it was not the "divide between East and West", it was your refusal
to learn anything you don't already 'know'. But this is all the more tragic,
because what you 'know' isn't even true.
Matthew Johnson
>Matthew Johnson <matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:<i6WTc.5398$Kf4....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
>> In article <l_VSc.32165$114....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, Loren says...
>> >
>> >Then you too don't follow the dynamic.
>>
>> No, your 'dynamic' is pure fiction.
>>
>> > I mentioned that alcoholic
>> >drinking water because if he could achieve the same end, he would do
>> >so.
>>
>>So not only is it hypothetical, it is a ridiculous and irrelevant hypothetical.
>>
>Again, you do not understand either the dynamic or the argument. It
>is very relevant even though the illustration was hypothetical.
No, the 'relevance' is in your imagination only. Water for a drunkard?
> The will is merely the means.
No, no, no. The will has NOTHING to do with means. It is 'choice' that has to do
with means, and even that only after the intellect has made a judgment. That is
why Augustine calls the first 'voluntas' and the second 'arbitrium'.
>The inclination is the end by which the
>means is regulated.
According to whom? I don't accept this definition. Why should I?
>God is governed by His holy inclination.
Scripture NEVER says this. The word 'inclination' is NEVER used concerning the
divine will.
>He
>wills nothing outside of His holiness, nor can He or could He. Like
>so, man, having lost his original inclination/governor, can now only
>perform works of unrighteousness. Even the RC theology maintains a
>quasi agreement with this in their doctrine of infused righteousness,
>agreeing that man can not produce his own righteousness aside from
>convient grace.
>>
>> > He is inclined toward the goal of drunkenness.
>>
>> There you are abusing that term again. I refer, of course, to
>> 'inclination'. But you forget: (or are you deliberately sweeping
>> it under the rug): _what_ is the drunkard trying to find in
>> drunkenness? Why does he _consistently_ turn to what
>> destroys himself, when supposedly he is selfish? Selfish people do not
>> _deliberately_ destroy themselves. But drunkards do destroy themselves.
>> Nor do
>> they have a monopoly on this blindly self-destructive behavior.
>>
>You can push any illustration into irrelevance.
No. Besides: yours didn't even need a 'push'. Water for a drunkard is already
deep into irrelevance without any push from me. And you are _still_ ducking the
question: why does he _consistently_ turn to what destroys himself, when
supposedly he is selfish?
>Yet the point made was valid
No, it was not. You would see this for yourself if you would answer the
question.
> and you have added nothing to the discussion other than
>disagreement.
No, this is false. I did add. And what I added was showing how groundless your
claim was, by underscoring how ridiculous your hypothetical is.
>But in your disagreement you have here only proven my point.
Not at all. By now you should know how unconvincing such facile claims are.
>"Deliberately" infers consciousness which often is the
>demonstration of the will. Inclination, on the other hand, is not
>conscious.
Why are you so sure of this? The idea of making the distinction between
'conscious' and 'unconscious' or 'subconscious' is very late, quite foreign to
the mindset of Scripture.
> In fact, the scriptures tells that fallen men are blind to
>their inclination (and to carnal believers).
No, it does not. What passage do you think supports your wild claim?
>That man has only a
>single inclination is demonstrated by the mere fact that Christ came
>and died for man.
No, it is not 'illustrated' by this.
>> >The will is subject to that inclination.
>>
>> No.
>>
>Yes!
No. Are you having fun now, trading "yes" and "no"?
>> >And, if he so choses not to drink at
>> >all, nothing has changed for he is still inclining toward self,
>>
>>Not true. If he keeps up that not drinking for long enough, the desire to drink
>> loses its force.
>
>No. As I continue to say, you do not understand.
And as you were wrong the first time, you are still wrong now.
> The reason he quits drinking, is unimportant.
No, the reason is VERY important. But you want your reader to believe it is
'unimportant' so that they will not notice how false your generalization is.
They do NOT all give up out of selfish motives (as you claim).
>He may do so simply from peer shame or fear
>of getting tossed into jail or a 1000 other reasons.
And many of these reasons are good. It is _grossly_ unfair to brand them all
'selfish'.
> He may
>consciously "will", in a particular instance, to decline an offer of
>drink, but his orientation is still selfish. The inclination is not
>affected. He is still determined and that determination is not God
>oriented. He is still the center of his universe and loves himself
>supremely. The motive to refuse a drink is selfish be*cause* he still
>has no orientation rooted in Godly holiness. To act a contrary way is
>nothing more than prudential. He is still selfishly inclined. There
>is no regenerated holiness. The volitional act by which he rejected
>the drink agrees with the moral quality of his heart.
It amazes me that you are so easily willing to condemn so many people so glibly.
No, this is simply not true. It is true only of the impenitent. But I already
gave you the example of the drunk in Novgorod who surpassed so many in
understanding 'repentance'. He certainly surpassed you.
>There was no desire or determination to please God.
I am at a loss to understand how anyone can believe that your posts could have
been written out of a "desire or determination to please God".
>Inclination cannot be affected
>by the will. Fallen man carries out his selfish inclination by his
>volition.
So you love to repeat. But it wasn't convincing the first time either.
>>Besides: those who learned to quit drinking the _Orthodox_ way
>> really _did_ lose the selfish inclination, too. The details are
>> in Khrapovitsky.
>>
>Inclination can never be effected by the will.
So you love to repeat. But I didn't find it convincing the first time I heard
it, and neither do I find it convincing now.
>Man, having fallen,
>can never will to be holy.
Wrong. If that were so, no one would voluntarily come to Baptism.
> A man who chooses to commit suicide, after
>the fact cannot will to make himself alive.
You are overinterpreting the word 'dead', as comparison whith the use of the
_same_ figure in Romans 7 shows.
> This is both true in the
>spiritual realm as it is in the physical realm. Man died when Adam's
>inclination self-determined away from God, to his own selfish end.
>>
>> >whether he does it not to lose face because of some situation, or
>> >because he choses to do something else with his money. The point is,
>> >his orientation never changes.
>>
>> But this _simply_ is not true! And yet you claim to have worked
>> with drunkards?
>> I am afraid you only hurt them, not helped them.
>>
>As always, it seems, you offer only negation with no discussion nor an
>alternative.
So says the man who offers nothing but negation in his _own_ manner, by
continuing to repeat the same unsupportable assertion -- in contradiction not
only to me, but even to Augustine and even to Scripture.
> Your inclination, it seems, is also selfish.
Well, of _course_ it seems that way to you, since you still pursue only the
"amor sui perversus & cavendus". That is what "amor sui" does to you; it makes
everybody else look just as selfish.
>> > It is always to gratify self.
>>
>> Isn't that why you post, too? Besides: once you switch the topic to
>> self-gratification, we are no longer talking about 'inclination', but about
>> "amor sui" Yet you never _did_ read the Augustine citations on this topic
>> I gave you, did you?
>>
>Iread it before you gave it to me. I quoted it before you did!
No, you did not. What _are_ you talking about? You never quoted Sermon 300 or
96. Nor did you quote the _same_ passages of Enchiridion (you only quoted #30).
You also quoted "Grace and Free Will", without a traceable citation, and without
checking in the Retractions. NONE of this is convincing.
>If
>you read his works, you will see little precipitation from a
>presupposition that man is able to pull himself up by his boot strap.
"Precipitation from a presupposition"? Now what was _that_ supposed to mean?
>Rather, he writes about children dying in their sin and the such.
>That hardly argues in your favor.
I am well aware of these words of his. They do not argue against it, either. Not
when you read Augustine syntopically. But you will not even budge in this
direction, as long as you refuse to acknowledge the Augustine citations I gave
you.
>> > This is why 1) the doctrine of total depravity is a given
>>
>> No, it is not. We have been over this often before, you have never been
>> able to give real support for your ignorant claim.
>"Ignorant." Do you not realize that when you continually *choose* to
>use such unedifying words that it betrays the condition of your heart?
And surely it 'betrays' a better condition than what _you_ betray by glibly and
falsely accusing so many of "purely selfish orientation". Surely it 'betrays' a
better condition than your _failure_ to see that you _are_ misusing the term to
mean something even Calvin NEVER said.
> "You say you have The Faith? Well your works don't show it!"
>>
>> No surprise there, though, since you don't even know what Calvin _meant_ by
>> "total depravity". Yet again: the word 'total' is _extensive_
>> not _intensive_.
>>
>He meant as I have been arguing.
No, he did not. You still insist on reading 'total' as intensive, not extensive.
But it is well known that Calvin meant it as extensive.
>That the inclination is wholly
>without Godly orientation. He agrees with the normative reading of
>Paul's argumentation in Rom 3:10ff. *NONE* *NOT* *NO*, negation 7
>times in vv. 10-18 concluding that **EVERY** mouth will be shut.
>"ALL sinned and fall short." It is TOTAL because "There is none who
>inclines for God." That is Paul's premise.
It is Paul's premise that "all sinned and fell short" (whoever that 'all' is),
but Paul NEVER said "there is none who inclines for God". Nowhere. So your claim
that he supports you is nothing but eisegesis.
>> > and 2) the Law
>> >cannot bring forth righteousness. Salvation by grace alone is the
>> >imputation of Christ's righteousness extra nos.
>>
>> Now _this_ Loren, is an excellent example of why I think you post out of the
>> desire for self-gratification. For you howl loudly and complain, when _I_ use
>> the Latin term "amor sui", yet here you are saying "extra nos".
>>
>That is because these where the very words that Luther used. He often
>used Latin phrases to explain his argument because they were
>understood.
Well, thank you for finally explaining your motive. But that does not absolve
you of the accusation.
>>I really cannot even imagine a righteous motive for such a blatant display of
>> a hypocritical double-standard, so I am lead to the conclusion that you write
>> these posts out of the selfish desire to please yourself, likely by making
>> yourself appear more pious or learned than others.
>>
>Again, no discussion.
That _is_ discussion. But since it is so unwelcome to you, you prefer to brand
it "no dicussion".
>Again, only negation.
If you don't like negation, don't make so many unsupported and unsupportable
assertions all at once.
>Again, putting down the oppositing view with no counter offer.
Because I knew you could not support it. Besides: anyone who has the bad habit
you have of _ignoring_ the 'counter-offer' (as you have done so often), has no
right to complain when it is no longer offered.
>No Matthew, I am defending my position.
Are you? I don't see the defense. All I see is foot-stamping repetition of the
same unsupportable claims.
>I am talking to someone who
>portrays learnedness and piety -you. But after a time it becomes
>obvious that when you are unable to counter the arguments being put
>forth you are reduced to running off sentences like the one above.
No, that is a very false version of the history of these threads. It was you who
resorted to dodges when you could not offer a true rebuttal.
>Who is the one who is actually adding to the discussion and who is the
>one who merely wishes "blatant display?" I'll let God be the judge of
>that. (Jm 3:1)
You won't like the result of His judgment any better than you did mine.
>WHERE is the discussion concerning point #2?
What "point #2"? Do you mean your point concerning the "federal headship" of
Adam? Why do you think I have to discuss that now? First, let me see that you
understand what I said about "point #1". Then we can move on to #2. THAT, Loren,
is what real discussion is like.
And no, I _don't_ see evidence that you understand what I said about #1.
Instead, as I just said, I see foot-stamping repetition. Not the same at all.
Matthew Johnson
>
>I'm trying to make sense of the discussion between Loren and Matthew, and
>not succeeding.
Since you are certainly "of the Reform Tradition" yourself, it might actually
help if you correct Loren for his misuse of Reform terminology. A lot of the
confusion could be avoided, if he didn't insist on his own sense for the phrase
"total depravity", even after he has been corrected _so_ many times.
> There's too much between them for me to be exactly sure
>what the issues are.
This is true. There is a lot of 'history'. But this is one of the reasons I have
been _trying_ to get him to write shorter posts.
>However one thing that is going on is that Loren is asserting that
>humans can't get rid of the inclination to sin, and Matthew is
>objecting.
Yes, that is correct. I am even objecting to the misuse of the term
'inclination' to describe this.
>What I *hope* Loren means is that they can't get rid of the
>inclination to sin on their own,
If this were what he meant, then he would still be guilty of provoking
unnecessary battles in words, because we agree on that. But I doubt that is what
he means.
> and that even with the help of the
>Holy Spirit the battle won't be entirely over until we join Christ
>after death.
Again, I doubt that this is what he really means.
>But surely the Holy Spirit does help us change our inclination. The
>Christian life is based on repentance.
This _is_ what I have been trying to get him to admit. But no luck so far.
>Repentance is, among other
>things, a step in the death of self, something we can do in
>Christ.
"Can do" or "must do"?
> After all, in baptism Christ's death is made active in us as a
>death to sin.
But if it is "made active in us as a death to sin", then how can what is dead,
i.e., sin, still have any activity at all, still tempting us to it? And no,
Romans 7 does _not_ answer the question, because Reform people keep insisting
that when _we_ are called "dead in trespasses and sins", it means we can do
NOTHING.
You can't have your cake and eat it too, you can't claim "dead" means "dead" in
one passage but not the other.
>Luther and Calvin never meant to detract people from the battle
>against sin.
The road to WHAT is paved with good intentions?
>Luther's protest started because he saw the Church as
>teaching that one could be saved purely by doing external acts -- and
>not even good works in the usual sense. His concern was that people
>thought they could do these things, but avoid any real change.
I won't deny that that was a major concern of his, but come now: in all
generations people have been desperate to come up with an excuse to do this,
nothing Luther did changed that 'inclincation'. It still exists among
Protestants, just in a very different form than among RCs and Orthodox.
>Justification by faith does not mean that we give up on making any
>change, because we think we're the elect.
One would hope not. But I _do_ see this version of it taught quite frequently in
these NGs. Nor should that be so surprising, since as long as one insists (as
many do) that 'faith' and 'grace' each have only ONE meaning, then you cannot
avoid this version. It is logically impossible to avoid. Of course, it is also
logically impossible to accept along with the rest of Scripture, but too many
lack the patience to figure this out on their own.
> Faith is being engrafted
>into Christ, and having the center of our lives transformed by him.
In ONE sense of the word, yes. And that is the sense used in Rom 10:9 and the
like. But not in James 2:17-20.
>This is Jesus' method: make the tree good, and the fruit will
>follow.
But WHO does the making? Who has to labor at it? We do, yet we do not get to
call it our own labor. This is what gets lost in the heat of "faith vs. works"
discussions.
>But it is also subject to Jesus' warning: the tree is known by
>its fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and
>thrown into the fire.
This also gets lost in the heat of "faith vs. works" discussions.
>The best-known writings of Luther and Calvin condemn "works", because
>what they mean are purely external works that don't reflect any real
>Christian regeneration.
I _wish_ I could believe that that is what they meant. But I cannot, not after
reading "On the Bondage of the Will".
> They saw the Church of their time as doing
>things that were equivalent to what Paul preached against in
>Romans. But Paul wasn't opposing good works. That's clear from the
>rest of his letters. He was opposed to "works of the Law," i.e.
>systems that depended upon external acts that do not reflect an
>actual transformation of our being.
This is one of the points I have often tried to make in "faith vs. works"
threads: there is a WORLD of a difference between "works" and "works of the
Law".
>What one emphasizes depends upon the context: Luther and Calvin saw
>specific dangers in their time. I think what they did was right, in
>that context.
And I don't think it was right. They would have been right to pursue the line
Melanchthon started -- union with the Orthodox Patriarchs. But this would have
been politically very difficult, I admit.
>But the dangers now present themselves in a different form.
On that, we agree. Now if we could agree on a countermeasure for the dangers...
>For some (though surely not all) justification by faith has
>itself turned into the very kind of thing that both Paul and Luther
>were opposed to: a confidence that in "accepting Christ," we won't
>have to die with him. Again, we have replaced actual regeneration
>based on dying with Christ and being recreated by him with a religious
>system.
And this is what I am objecting to in many posters in this NG.
[snip]
>Matthew is so convinced that
>the Reformed tradition is apostate that he'd argue with Calvin if he
>said that the sky is blue.
Right, I would tell him to look at a different time of day, and realize that its
color is quite flexible;)
>Loren has a tendency to write from a
>sufficiently hardcore Reformed perspective that people in other
>traditions may not recognize points of contact that are actually
>present.
Well, and what else should Loren _expect_ when his _own_ emphasis is so VERY FAR
from those "points of contact"?
Loren
> I'm trying to make sense of the discussion between Loren and Matthew, and
> not succeeding. There's too much between them for me to be exactly sure
> what the issues are.
>
And yet, there never was a resolve at the time of the Reformation, why
should there be one now?
>
> However one thing that is going on is that Loren is asserting that
> humans can't get rid of the inclination to sin, and Matthew is
> objecting.
>
> What I *hope* Loren means is that they can't get rid of the
> inclination to sin on their own, and that even with the help of the
> Holy Spirit the battle won't be entirely over until we join Christ
> after death.
>
that they originated the thought for even Plato and Aristotle came to
the same conclusion, though to the level that a Christian now can.)
> But surely the Holy Spirit does help us change our inclination.
>
My position is that a second inclination is regenerated in the
believer at the time of conversion/justification. It is not
incremental except in our affections becoming increasingly reliant
upon the Spirit and less that of the flesh.
>
>The
> Christian life is based on repentance. Repentance is, among other
> things, a step in the death of self, something we can do in
> Christ. After all, in baptism Christ's death is made active in us as a
> death to sin.
>
What you write here I feel illustrates the necessity to be very
articulate and technical in nature. To say, "the Christian life is
based on repentance" is at best, a misnomer. Am I being *too*
technical? For the basis is nothing less than Christ living in me.
Repentance is an effect of, not a cause of regeneration. This is part
of argument between Matthew and I. I maintain that man is incapable
of repentance unless God first regenerates him. So in a sense, man is
justified before he consciously understands the gospel and then makes
a confession of faith.
>
> Luther and Calvin never meant to detract people from the battle
> against sin. Luther's protest started because he saw the Church as
> teaching that one could be saved purely by doing external acts --
>
No, not technically. For the RC doctrine does not exclude "faith" or
the "righteousness of Christ. Therefore it is not "purely by doing
external acts" which Luther was opposing. He was opposing "infusion"
and that is involved therein, with "impartation." For it would be
wrong to ascribe to either Luther's perception or the RC theological
position, that salvation is a matter of "external acts." He was
opposed to the first instance being sacredotolistic.
>
> and
> not even good works in the usual sense. His concern was that people
> thought they could do these things, but avoid any real change.
>
In your study of Luther, do you think this was his basic opposition to
the RCC?
>
> Justification by faith does not mean that we give up on making any
> change, because we think we're the elect. Faith is being engrafted
> into Christ, and having the center of our lives transformed by him.
> This is Jesus' method: make the tree good, and the fruit will
> follow. But it is also subject to Jesus' warning: the tree is known by
> its fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and
> thrown into the fire.
>
And thus Luther's objection that salvation is something done *for* the
sinner (extra nos) and not something accomplished *in* the sinner.
>
> The best-known writings of Luther and Calvin condemn "works", because
> what they mean are purely external works that don't reflect any real
> Christian regeneration.
>
I disagree. Again, the RCC does not teach salvation by works.
Certainly theirs is an admixture of faith & works, and certainly
pragmatically that results in a salvation by works, but technically
speaking, that was not and is not the doctrine of the RCC.
What both of these men objected to was the instrumental cause of
justification and whether it was a punctiliar act of God or a "first
instance" which included resulting effects from which justification,
sooner or later, was gained. The RCC teaching, opposed the Reformed,
is that justification could not only decrease, but be lost (yet not
entirely for baptism is only administered once). This is why I took
issue with your explanation of repentance because in the RC mindset,
penance (confession, contrition & absolution) as a sacrament which
restores justification, is an idea totally outside of the Reformed
view. The "works of satisfaction" are the issue. The question of the
Reformation is whether or not works *at all* are involved in either
the cause or the grounds of justification -congruency
Again, I don't mean to be overly technical but the discussion is
necessarily technical if we don't want to misrepresent each side of
the issue.
>
>They saw the Church of their time as doing
> things that were equivalent to what Paul preached against in
> Romans. But Paul wasn't opposing good works. That's clear from the
> rest of his letters. He was opposed to "works of the Law," i.e.
> systems that depended upon external acts that do not reflect an
> actual transformation of our being.
>
> What one emphasizes depends upon the context: Luther and Calvin saw
> specific dangers in their time. I think what they did was right, in
> that context. But the dangers now present themselves in a different
> form. For some (though surely not all) justification by faith has
> itself turned into the very kind of thing that both Paul and Luther
> were opposed to: a confidence that in "accepting Christ," we won't
> have to die with him.
>
And this they did by using technical words. Both accent and
acceptance are required by these two men. What you are alluding to
above is where accent is emphasized to the exclusion of personal
acceptance (weight). I believe that the "Lordship Salvation" issue,
raised primarily through John MacArthur, was a corrective
"reformation" concerning "easy believism."
>
> Again, we have replaced actual regeneration
> based on dying with Christ and being recreated by him with a religious
> system.
>
> This whole discussion seems to be a model of how not to talk with
> members of other Christian traditions. Matthew is so convinced that
> the Reformed tradition is apostate that he'd argue with Calvin if he
> said that the sky is blue.
>
And I'm not claiming innocence here either. But I have been musing
over whether or not dialogue is actually possible when very basic
tenets of faith are in opposition to one another. I will be the first
to declare that my grasp of EO dogma's are at the primer level. But
what I feel is a major obstacle to hurdle is EO's apophatic
theological nature. It, for all intense and purposes, veils EO
doctrinal stances and dogmas.
But I think it is also wise and prudent to revisit doctrinal positions
from time to time. Speaking for myself, I think more than any other,
Matthew has caused such an effect. Unfortunately, this positive is
too often overshadowed by a tone which is overtly polemical.
>Loren has a tendency to write from a
> sufficiently hardcore Reformed perspective
>
and me being a Baptist! Oh the shame of it! ;-)
>
>that people in other
> traditions may not recognize points of contact that are actually
> present.
So what is the resolve?
Myself, I have tried to use more technical terms to avoid confusion
only to end up either being accused of being arrogant or deliberately
causing more confusion by talking over those who are less learned or
knowledgeable of the terms.
Also, I think too often there are those of us here concerned with what
we see as the errors of the opposing theological camp, that we all but
set aside the common ground which our theological opponents share. I
think this part of what Paul alludes to when he writes Timothy:
But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they
produce quarrels. And the Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome,
but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with
gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may
grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they
may come to their senses {and escape} from the snare of the devil,
having been held captive by him to do his will.
[2 Tim. 2:23-26 NASB]
Sometimes I do cringe when pondering what takes place in this NG as a
"snare of the devil." I wonder how many have turned away from the
Good News when they see no evidences of "that they may all be one;
even as Thou, Father, art in Me and I in Thee, that they also may be
in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me." Christ
make unity a primary apologetic before the watching world and yet so
little of it is evidenced here.
I think your response was a precipitate of my questioning whether or
not the NG should again address the question of separating Catholic
from Reformed. The issue was not resolve in 1500 and its not going to
be resolved here among lessors. Sometimes I view the differences to
be equal to those between Trinitarians and Arians (Jehovah Witnesses)
and wonder if it wouldn't just be better to acknowledge that and
separate. For just as the issue of the divinity of Christ is a
rudimentary issue of the faith, equally so is that of justification.
These are not minor differences of opinion but in truth effectuate the
reality of whether one is truly "in Christ" or whether one has chosen
the broad path. It was most evident in Matthew's last post that he
too has reached this point in our "discussions."
************************
"I'd like to change the world, but I don't know what to do." Deep
Purple
Matthew Johnson
>
>Charles Hedrick <hed...@geneva.rutgers.edu> wrote in message
>news:<wHdUc.9413$Kf4....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
>> I'm trying to make sense of the discussion between Loren and Matthew, and
>> not succeeding. There's too much between them for me to be exactly sure
>> what the issues are.
>>
>First, thank you. I am glad for at least some form a mediatorship.
>And yet, there never was a resolve at the time of the Reformation, why
>should there be one now?
Because we believe in "progress"?
[snip]
>This is exactly what I mean as both Luther and Calvin also taught
But it is not what you actually SAID. That is why even Charles was unsure. Now
that Charles has chimed in, will you _please_ recognize this and be more careful
in your expressions? A lot of acrimony could have been avoided by this simple
counter-measure.
[snip]
>What you write here I feel illustrates the necessity to be very
>articulate and technical in nature.
Which is why I keep pressing you for a definition (or at least coherent
discussion on the meaning of) this word you bandy about so much, 'inclination'.
It has TOO MANY different meanings for you to use it as casually as you do.
> To say, "the Christian life is
>based on repentance" is at best, a misnomer.
I don't think so. It appears Charles does not think so either.
>Am I being *too* technical?
Sometimes. But at other times, you are being sloppy when you think you are being
'technical'. And a lot of unnecessary acrimony was stirred up by this, too.
>For the basis is nothing less than Christ living in me.
>Repentance is an effect of, not a cause of regeneration.
This is something we obviously disagree on.
> This is part
>of argument between Matthew and I.
Yes.
> I maintain that man is incapable
>of repentance unless God first regenerates him.
And I maintain this contradicts too much of the Tradition of the Church: the
adult candidate for Baptism is lead to the laver of regeneration AFTER his first
confession (of sins), not before.
> So in a sense, man is
>justified before he consciously understands the gospel and then makes
>a confession of faith.
Then why is the Creed recited _before_ the laver?
[snip]
>And this they did by using technical words.
They did, true. But I am not alone in rejecting the way they used them and the
definitions they assumed for them. What I have been _trying_ to do is get you to
see that these ways and definitions are NOT from Scripture.
[snip]
> But I have been musing
>over whether or not dialogue is actually possible when very basic
>tenets of faith are in opposition to one another.
It is possible, but it is more difficult than what you are accustomed to.
>I will be the first
>to declare that my grasp of EO dogma's are at the primer level.
But this is why you should not brush me off when I tell you that Clendenin was
not a good choice. Read Lossky instead, even if you only read his thin book.
> But
>what I feel is a major obstacle to hurdle is EO's apophatic
>theological nature.
But this shouldn't be such an obstacle, since it _is_ the common heritage of
both East and West. The Cathedral of St. Denis in Paris is named after the
author of the classic texts on apophatic theology, St. Dionysios the Areopagite.
> It, for all intense and purposes, veils EO
>doctrinal stances and dogmas.
No, it does not _veil_ them, except in the sense that we still see in a glass
(mirror) darkly.
>But I think it is also wise and prudent to revisit doctrinal positions
>from time to time. Speaking for myself, I think more than any other,
>Matthew has caused such an effect. Unfortunately, this positive is
>too often overshadowed by a tone which is overtly polemical.
Then why are you still resisting my many suggestions to keep it from getting so
polemical? Recall the principal suggestions were:
1 - always mark where you snip, snip what you don't address
2 - don't try to do too much in one post
3 - always give citations as exact as possible
4 - don't rely on Reform authors citing and interpreting Augustine: read
Augustine in context yourself and check that they read him right
5 - proofread your expressions, make sure they will read unambiguously when
appearing on someone else's screen, don't rely on intonation.
And I am sure I forgot some other important ones.
>>Loren has a tendency to write from a
>> sufficiently hardcore Reformed perspective
>>
>and me being a Baptist! Oh the shame of it! ;-)
This IS one of the things that has me confused about you, Loren. I know enough
about the Baptist tradition to know that Wesley historically had more influence
than Calvin.
>>that people in other
>> traditions may not recognize points of contact that are actually
>> present.
>
>So what is the resolve?
>
>Myself, I have tried to use more technical terms to avoid confusion
>only to end up either being accused of being arrogant or deliberately
>causing more confusion by talking over those who are less learned or
>knowledgeable of the terms.
Right: don't assume that everybody else treats as 'standard' or 'normative' a
term or definition that is fully accepted ONLY by Reform theologians. I forgot
to include that in my list above.
[snip]
Matthew Johnson
You know, there must be a lot of posters in this NG who would envy you. After
all, according to your theory, all you have to do to make me go away is wake up!
So wake up, already!
Matthew Johnson
>
>qqu...@hotmail.com (Quito Quito) wrote in message
>news:<__BRc.2841$Kv2.2766@trndny09>...
>> Mechanical causality, materialism and so on are *not* merely a belief.
>> Instead, modern life/medical sciences are based on it and, most
>> importantly, it *works*.
>
>Science, modern or ancient, is dream-nonsense.
I can't _wait_ to see how the christina, professional, believing scientists
respond to this one;)
> It doesn't work.
Sure, it does.
>The appearance that it does it part of the dream,
What a broken epistemology!
> and it is an
>appearance which has plenty of exceptions:
I'm sure Didymus would be very excited if you could show him one, especially if
it is cheaper and more convenient to see than flying to Jerusalem on Orthodox
Holy Saturday.
> more and more the longer
>I live. Every day of this "life" I experience "miracles"
>(suspensions in the so-called principles of modern science).
>Science does not stand up to simple logical analysis.
Of course it does.
John Sparks
> My "theory" is often proven, by observations of "physically
> impossible" things. And in fact, I have -- inadvertently --
> stepped out in front of traffic (a fast-turning vehicle). It
> disappeared.
Well Mark, you are clearly a figment of *my* imagination. I must be
dreaming.
So even if you "think" you exist, that is just me imagining you thinking
that you exist.
I am even imagining that you imagine that you are the only real thing and
that we are figments of your imagination. I also imagine that you are a
complete loon.
Amazing what my mind can come up with after a long day and drinking too much
cola.
Matthew Johnson
>
>Matthew Johnson <matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:<i6WTc.5398$Kf4....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
>> In article <l_VSc.32165$114....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, Loren says...
>>
>> And if they fall into Calvinism, they _remain_ depraved.
>>
>Then, according to your statement, Calvinism is heretical to the point
>of having no hope of salvation.
YOUR variety of it is. And why are you so surprised by this accusation, when it
was you who raised such an accusation against RC and Orthodox first, implicitly?
>For if those who "fall into
>Calvinism, they _remain_ depraved" then Calvinist are hell bound
>according to you. Strange that you are so antithetical about this.
Nothing 'strange' about it. What is strange is that someone would cling so
desperately to such deep, dark error.
>> >Here is where Protestants separate themselves from the catholic
>> >traditions which maintain that only a part of man fell.
>>
>> What? No. Where _do_ you get this nonsense? More important, where
>> do you get the tragic delusion, that you can be doing God's work by
>> repeating such slander?
>>
>> And yes, it _is_ slander: for it is _clear_ from Catholic sources
>> that they have
>> long taught that both body and soul were deeply wounded by the
>> Fall. Tanquerey,
>> for example describes the wounds of the body as "passibility
>>and mortality" and the four wounds of the soul as "ignorance,
>> by with the mind is _so_ weakened by comparison with its former
>> state that it knows the truth only with difficulty,
>> and easily falls into error", and "malice, in which the will
>> is prone to evil, and with difficulty overcomes vices and
>> cultures virtues", "weakness of the
>> irascible appetite" and "concupiscence".
>> (Tanquerey, Brevior Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae #681). So what part
>> is left
>> unharmed?
>>
>Aquinas, that ol' rascal, he synthesized Aristotle's notion of human
>consciousness.
So you say. But you are wrong. Quoting Van Till does not help you. He too is
fallible. Besides: I just gave you the citation from a more modern Catholic
source who _clearly_ shows the body and _all_ the parts of the soul as harmed by
the Fall. So how can you claim he "maintained only a part of man fell"?
>And "in consequence a large measure of autonomy is
>assigned to the human consciouness as over against the consciousness
>of God. . . . It follows that Roman has too high a notion of the moral
>consciousness of fallen man. According to Thomas, fallen man is not
>very dissimilar from Adam in paradise. He says that while the sinner
>needs grace for more things than did Adam, he does not need grace
>more." (Christian Thiestic Ethics, Van Till. p. 29)
But this is ridiculous. I just gave you the proof that a standard RC handbook of
theology shows ALL the parts of the soul _and_ the body as harmed by the Fall,
and you give me Van Till's citation? But what if Van Till misread the Romans?
Did that ever occur to you?
>"And thus in the state of perfect naute man needs a gratuitous
>strength super-added to natural strength for one reason, viz. in order
>to do and wish supernatural good; but for two reasons, in the state
>of corrupt nature, viz., in order to be healed, and further more in
>order to carry out works of supernatural virtue, which are
>meritorious. Beyond this, in both states man needs the Divine help,
>that he may be moved to act well". (Summa Theologia. Vol 8. p 326)
>
>So you are simply wrong. Aquinas is more telling what the RC position
>is than Augustine.
NO, it is you (with Van Till) who are "simply wrong". No surprise, though, when
you got yourself so badly mixed up as to talk about my quoting Augustine when on
_this_ topic, I quoted Tanquerey.
>quinas did not so much see the ethical problem of
>man being one of ethical obedience as it was on of finitude.
How do you get this out of Aquinas? It certainly does NOT follow from ST V8p326.
Why, it doesn't even follow that he thought Adam was ever _in_ this "state of
perfect nature".
>Here the
>Reformer simply disagree. Man does not "tend naturally to evil"
>because he is finite. He does so because he is depraved by nature.
But this is where the Reformers dive off into gross error. And this error is NOT
something Augustine ever gave you precedent for.
>Aquinas maintains that man is in need of grace because he is a
>creature regardless of whether or not he is a sinner.
Have you already forgotten your own Aquinas quote? He needs grace in any case,
but for TWO reasons after the Fall. How can you ignore the distinction between
the two?
>Thus, God owes
>man grace, at least to some extent. "and man does not become totally
>depraved when he does not make such use of the grace given him as to
>keep himself from sin entirely. For in any case the act of his free
>will puts him naturally in grave danger. Fallen man is therefore only
>partly guilty and only partly to blame. He retains much of the same
>ethical power that man had in paradise." (CTE, p.30). i.e If man by
>his will caused his fall, then equally, man by his will can recover
>from it (when, by the grace of God, Christ's rightousness is infused
>into him."
>
>Iam not wrong in this point.
Yes, you are. Read your own Aquinas quote and COUNT up to TWO!
>It would be wrong, as many conclude,
>that RCism teaching salvation by works. It does no such thing.
>However, because RCism teaching that the state of justifying grace is
>habtus, "in" us, able to increase or decrease or for that matter, even
>to be lost, works is most definitely part of the formula. The
>Reformed view recaptures the NT teaching that salvation is gained by a
>work wholly outside of man.
The problem being, of course, that this is NOT the "NT teaching". On the
contrary: your blind insistence that is is explains why you MUST resort to
eisegesis on Php 2:12-13.
>Man is justified by a declaration of God
>which can neither increase nor decrease because it is for grace, not
>of works. That is, there is no merit involved. And because there is
>no merit involved, neither can there be demerit. "THere is now
>therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus," for we
>have entered into His rest, "having offered one sacrifice for sins for
>all time, sat down at the right hand of God.... for by one offering
>He HAS perfectED for all time those who are being sanctified."
[snip]
>> >I really do understand your objection.
>> No, you do not. On the contrary: the only thing you understand is a straw man
>> you have set up to protect yourself from facing the unpleasant truth; it
>> is your entire theology that is built on straw.
>>
>And if for argument sake, lets say you are correct, it is a straw man,
>who's fault is that?
Why, yours, of course.
>You never declare/disclose EOC doctrine.
This is blatantly false. I do it often. In fact, STILL haven't replied to the
post where I explained the importance of symbolism in Orthodoxy yet
(Message-ID: <cfk9fj$6lu$1...@nikalinux.nikaconsulting.net>).
>All you do is negate what others write.
If that were true (it isn't), surely that would still be better than your
foot-stamping repetition.
> For instance, in all this long
>lengthy post, where once did you ever openly and didactically express
>the EO position? Just once. Please, show me.
Come on, Loren. You know where I did it. I did it in my explaination of symbols.
And you still haven't answered. Besides: most people dislike didactic
expression. And rightly so. Why are you so hungry for them?
>Iunderstand and appreciate apophatic theology at certain points.
I know you think you do, but you do not.
>However, the internet is cataphatic.
No, it is not. Where do you get this nonsense?
>And to never deviate from the
>apophatic is in truth, gnostic in its tendency.
What? Where _do_ you get these ideas? That might be true with a FALSE definition
of 'apophatic'. So which false definition are you insisting on this time?
>> > You have to object, that is,
>> >your system requires it. For if total depravity is admitted, then
>> >salvation is gained via that which is outside of man, not that which
>> >is accomplished inside of man, thus condemning the entire religious
>> >system which supposes otherwise. Oh I understand why you are so
>> >opposed to sola fide, sola gratia and sola scriptura. It is all
>> >systematically tied in with you objection.
>>
>> The only thing 'systematic' here is your systematic misreading not only of my
>> posts, but of the Fathers, and even of Scripture.
>>
>Again, not discussion. No open, positive notation. This isn't
>apophatic, it just plain being obtuse.
No, the obtuseness is in your systematic misreading. I _have_ given you
discussion, you ignored it, pretended I didn't, snipped without marking where
you snipped and responded with irrelevant rambling and slanderous accusations
against RCs, Orthodox, and now even against drunkards, branding them 'bums'.
What does _this_ reveal about your inclination, Loren?
[snip]
>> >No he cannot. Paul attest to this even of the believer "in Christ" in
>> >Rom 7.
>>
>> No, he says no such thing. As I have already reminded you MANY times, it is
>> controversial whether or not Paul even _is_ referring to the believer.
>> He could be referring to the plight of man _before_ baptism.
>>
>No. It is not controversial.
Yes, it is. You would know this if you read something NOT written by fanatical
Reform ideologues. But judging from your quotes, you don't do this.
>The book of Romans is logically progressive.
But you have repeatedly shown that you don't _understand_ the progression. All
you understand is your own eisegesis of it. That is why you have do repeatedly
deny that his choice of topics is determined primarily by pastoral concerns and
NOT by an attempt to write "systematic theology".
>Paul starts out with condemnation, then proceeds into
>justification, and then on to sanctification. Sanctification only
>involves the believer. So Rom 7, following after Rom 5:1, is speaking
>of the believer who has been justified, who has been regenerated, who
>now has the new inclination to please God, but does not have the
>power. Rom 8 teaches that the power is the Spirit.
Nice try, but no.
>The controversy only comes with those who come to the text with
>predetermined will to be read into it what they will.
No, "read into it what they will" is what you did to come up with your imaginary
order of topics in Romans.
>Rom's 8 makes
>little sense if Rom 7 "O wretched man that I am" is where all
>Christians stand from time to time, desiring, wishing, inclining to do
>good, but willfully not yielding to the Spirit and therefore not
>having the power to do so.
And why do you think that would force Rom 8 to "make little sense"? Perhaps
because your theology relies on following the {C} reading in UBS in chapter 8?
>"Nothing good dwells in me" can only be
>recognized if one is already regenerated for "in whose case the god of
>this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might
>not see...(2 Cor. 4:4 )
No, on the contrary: it _must_ be recognized _before_ regeneration or the
impenitent will never _turn_ to regeneration. This _should_ be obvious. Why
can't you see it yet?
>> This ambiguity is exactly WHY you need to stifle your pride and submit to the
>> opinions of the Fathers on these verses. Otherwise you will never
>> overcome your fantastic pride of mind.
>In this case, ambiguity is self-determined. 7:15-25 clearly and
>logically refers to the believer who finds in himself the inability to
>over come sin which continues to reside within him. Only the
>regenerated man can experience the dual inclinations. One being
>sinful. One seeking to please God. Even baby Christian's are aware
>of this truth.
This glib assertion of yours leaves me doubting that you have ever _had_ a real
talk with a "baby Christian". For I have known many such who knew what you still
stubbornly deny, that Rom 7 describes their state before and after their initial
repentance.
Charles Hedrick
definite idea of what order things come in the Christian life. But
real people aren't alike, and different people experience things
differently.
In principle I have to agree with Loren that the activity of the Holy
Spirit precedes repentance. Without God's help, we are unable to truly
assess our own situation candidly enough to do what I would classify
as real Christian repentance.
But people don't necessarily develop in nice, neat stages. Hence the
famous prayer "I believe; help my unbelief!". It may be that
someone's first Christian experience will be realizing that their life
is a mess and that something must change. This is a form of
repentance. Others may experience something else first. In fact it
may start with something that isn't explicitly Christian at at all.
There are more and less mature forms of repentance. Because true
repentance comes only through grace, at the beginning of our
experience we are more likely to make excuses for ourselves, and to be
sorry more for the the bad results we experience than for the effect
of our sins on others and God. But grace is there even at the
beginning, so even the first groping steps are part of a regeneration
that at the point is just starting.
In Calvin's description, the process starts with God's decision to
save us, as a result of which he engrafts us in Christ, we receive
this in faith, and this results in the dual effects of justification
and sanctification (or as Calvin normally prefers, forgiveness and
regeneration). This is a fine description for purposes of exposition.
But the way it plays itself out in any particular person's experience
is more complex, with some aspects being almost invisible at the
beginning, but reinforcing each other over time. There's nothing
unReformed about acknowledging that repentance helps us increase our
faith, that our inclinations are slowly regenerated over time,
etc. The Holy Spirit acts through means, as well as directly.
Protestant churches have the same practice that Matthew reports for
the Orthodox: we wouldn't baptise an adult unless they have confessed
their sins, and professed Christian faith. But surely the Holy Spirit
is already at work in them at that point, so regeneration has already
started.
The issue of how a sacrament is connected to the reality is a complex
one. I don't regard sacraments as "just a symbol" in the usual
dismissive sense. But neither do I believe that regeneration is unable
to start before the physical act of baptism. The sacrament includes a
reality that isn't limited to the time when the water hits.
Matthew Johnson
>Matthew Johnson <matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:<i6WTc.5398$Kf4....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
>> In article <l_VSc.32165$114....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, Loren says...
>> >
>> The details are in Khrapovitsky.
>>
>> > extra nos.
>>
>> Now _this_ Loren, is an excellent example of why I think you post out of the
>> desire for self-gratification. For you howl loudly and complain, when _I_ use
>> the Latin term "amor sui", yet here you are saying "extra nos".
>>
>Ifail to see the difference using your own standard.
I am not surprised anymore by your failures to see.
>At least "extra
>nos" is understood by you. I haven't a clue who Khrapovitsky, nor
>does 99.9% of the readership.
But why _don't_ you know? I have referred to him in posts to you before. See,
for example, my reply to your msg-id: c3fad1$ejb$1...@nikalinux.nikaconsulting.net.
What is your excuse for forgetting? It wasn't that long ago. I still remember
who Shedd and Wuest are.
>At least one can reasonably deduct what "extra nos" is indicative of.
And you can reasonably deduce what kind of details I was referring you to
Khrapovitsky for. So you have no grounds for complaint.
>> >It is totally alien
>
>"extra" as in "ET" or "extra-terrestrial."
But then this would be simply WRONG. It should not be "outside", but "from
outside", i.e., 'extrinsecus' or even "de extra". But the former is better
Latin.
>> >because man's orientation is only and always selfish. He cannot
>> >"choose" to do good because his inclination is always toward self,
>> >i.e. totally depraved.
>>
>> Here Augustine contradicts you: for he _clearly_ showed that this self-ward
>> inclination is _exactly_ what is destroyed by the spiritual warfare against
>> "amor sui".
>>
>Then why, please tell me, does he conclude, as I have quoted, that
>when an infant dies he dies a sinner if he did not agree with the
>total depravity of man? Come on, discuss for once.
An infant dies a sinner if the infant does not agree? Come now, Loren, you will
have to do better than that before you have the right to complain about _others_
"not discussing".
>> > The RC idea of the infusion of Christ's
>> >righteousness into the sinner to enable him to strive toward a
>> >righteous standing before God is anti-biblical. There is NO merit or
>> >demerit involved in grace whatsoever.
>>
>> No, it is your _claim_ here that has no merit.
>
>You can't even honestly illustrate your negation.
Oh, no?
>Poor is the man who
>buys his wife flowers only in hope of getting something in return.
>Grace is giving without any consideration of debt.
That is one sense of the word, but certainly not the sense primarily in mind
when discussing "infused grace".
>Have you never so
>given yourself? Have you never anonomously slipped a hundred bucks
>under the door of a fellow student who was struggling to meet his
>financial obligations to remain in study? Do you tithe anonomously?
I'm not about to answer this here. You should know that (Mat 6:3). So you should
know what an unfair question it is. But your brazen audacity asking the unfair
question is yet another proof that you have yet to pick up your spiritual
weapons and wage genuine spiritual warfare.
>Do you have the "inclination" from which such a choice wills to be
>made?
That is an off-limits question for the same reason.
>> Besides: why are you even
>> _talking_ about RC theology? You bragged earlier of Clendenin's book on
>> Orthodoxy. Didn't the author at -least- explain how our theology differs from
>> the RC here? If not, then my previous condemnation of Clendenin was too mild!
>>
>Above you deride me for using "extra nos" on the pretense that the
>readership doesn't understand such termonology.
No, I deride you for the double-standard. And for repeating Latin phrases you
don't really understand yourself.
>Here you deride me for writing to an audience larger than yourself.
No, I deride you for _dodging_ the question while _pretentiously_ directing your
comments to a non-existent audience instead.
>Come on Matthew.
>You accuse me of a "a blatant display of a hypocritical
>double-standard?"
Yes. And your response was no rebuttal. We are NOT talking about RC theology. If
someone else wants to read about the RC response, then that would be an
appropriate topic for another post.
>> >> >There is no self
>> >> >possibility of an alteration in the bias of the will. Volitionary
>> >> >choice acts out of a state of indifference toward the thing chosen.
>> >>
>>>> Again, your own example disproves this. For the severe alcoholic's desire for
>> >> alcohol is ANYTHING BUT 'indifference'.
>> >>
>> >No. It is not. His inclination toward drunkenness is wholly selfish.
>>
>> So why are you calling it 'indifference'?
>>
>This kind of statement belies the fact that you reply before you read
>the entire post.
This is obviously false.
> You reply only to negate.
This too is obviously false. But I do 'negate' often in posts to you because you
don't know how to write a logical exposition of an argument. All you know how to
do is connect together a long string of unsuported (and often even
unsupportable) assertions.
> There is no discussion with you.
No, it is _you_ there is "no discussion" with. Have you already forgotten how
Bart rebuked you just a few days ago for the same thing? It's not that often I
get to agree with Bart so wholeheartedly;)
>> > He doesn't care what it takes to get the job done. All he wants is
>> >to get drunk. I've worked with alcoholic's in inner city Chicago.
>> >I'm talking about drop out of society bums who panhandle corners to
>> >scrape a couple of bucks together to buy the cheapest alcohol they can
>> >get. They are totally indifferent to anything and everything except
>> >the goal. Again, you seem not to grasp the basics of the dynamic.
>>
>> No, it is you who do not grasp the basics. If you did grasp it, you would not
>> have said _so_ much of what you said! You would also know how wrong it
>>was, by considering the analogous situation: how does this drunkards
>>'indifference'
>>differ from the state _you_ would be in yourself, after going without food for a
>>week? Yet Christ went for forty days without, and _still_ refused to turn stones
>> into bread!
>>
>That is because He did not self determine an inclination other than to
>please God.
You miss the point. Of course He didn't do this. But you only considered half of
what I said. Where's the other half? What state would _you_ be in after going
without food for a week? How would that differ from the drunkard's? Until you
answer this, you cannot understand what Christ accomplished for our salvation in
the desert -- or in the Garden of Gethsemane.
>By bringing up this account, you illustrate that Christ
>stood at the very place that Adam did when he could either remain true
>in his orientation toward God or he could follow after his wife (self
>orientation.) Christ, tested in all points, did not fall from the
>holy inclination.
The _very_ place? Do you then believe that Adam too, had the same union without
confusion of the human and divine natures? If not, then HOW can this be "the
very place"?
>The question often asked, "Could Jesus have sinned?" is readily
>answered by this dynamic of "the inclination of the will being the
>result of self-determination, not of a volition, because the
>inclination is the self-determination viewed objectively."
But what if that is the wrong answer?
> Christ's
>was always and only moved spontaneously to the will of the Father as
>the supreme end.
And why do you think it was 'spontaneously' moved? Are you using 'spontaneously'
as an antonym for 'deliberately'? But when fallen man acts 'spontaneously', he
does something VERY different from what Christ did. Also, Christ's WHAT? Will?
Or inclination?
How can you have the gall to complain about my not 'discussing' when you leave
such a crucial assertion so sloppily constructed?
>John 8:42 ... I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent
>Me.
What theologically biased translation is THIS? There is NOTHING in the Greek
text corresponding to 'initiative' here! On what basis do you insert words into
the text? The text only has "AP' EMAYTOY".
>John 15:10 "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love;
>just as I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love.
And you are not doing this, when you accuse RCs of exalting the intellect in
their theology, even to the point of exempting the mind from the damage of the
Fall.
>"Abiding" is nothing short of operating out of the regenerated
>inclination to please God, for the Christian.
And again: you are not doing this when you accuse RCs of exalting the intellect
in their theology, even to the point of exempting the mind from the damage of
the Fall.
> For Christ it was
>nothing short of delighting to do the will of the Father who sent Him.
> "Not my will, but Thine."
You say this as if I was supposed to bask in its pious sound, and refuse to
inquire further. But I will not fall into that trap. Instead, I will ask, as I
have asked before: which of Christ's two wills (one proper to each nature) do
you think He is referring to here as "my will"? I don't remember you answering
this.
[snip]
>> Then again, just the fact that you still stoop so low as to call them 'bums'
>> also shows you learned nothing.
>>
>If you had worked with them, you would know that it is their term.
No, it is not. Somehow, I find it easier to believe that _you_ think it is their
term because you just didn't listen when they used other terms to refer to
themselves. But I have heard them protest loudly when this term is used. And
they have the right to protest.
>But that you judge me only reveals openly your own thought processes.
Ah, if only you could be so observant of your _own_ thought processes!
[snip]
>> The great Augustine would NEVER have commanded us to do the impossible, to
>>change our own inclination, unless he knew what you still blindly deny: it _is_
>> possible, by the grace of God. But "to love o.s., NOT in loving o.s." is
>> _definitely_ a major change of inclination.
>>
>Then you align yourself with the RC doctrine of infused of grace.
>There is no third way here. Either the Spirit of God works
>immediately or mediately.
But there are _so_ many different ways to see even _this_ dichotomy. 'Mediate'
in which sense? And if we are going to follow the RCS in allowing multiple
definitions of grace, why not allow one to work mediately, and another
immediately?
>That God is working in us "both to will and
>to do" indicates that it is immediate.
Does it now? I don't see it that way. Perhaps you would agree, if you realized
this verse is about SYNERGY. Besides: since you are now trying to discuss RC
theology, RC theology cites this verse about "gratia actualis", NOT about
"gratia habitualis". But they call it "infused" ONLY when talking about "gratia
habitualis". (Tanquerey 862, 900,901a2).
>The sinner does not, because
>he cannot, choose or resolve to incline himself to God.
No, he can, and he must. If he fails to do so, he remains outside in the cold.
That IS part of the nature of repentance.
>Rather, God the Spirit immediately inclines him "to will and to do."
You are quoting Paul out of context: he was not talking about the unregenerate
sinner when he wrote that.
> In His regeneration, God determines the will by renewing it.
NO. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that. That is Reform eisegesis.
>In the case of
>Adam's apostasy, he determined himself to evil without any immediate
>operation of God.
'Determination' to evil is not in Scripture, either. That is Reform eisegesis.
>But by grace, fallen man is immediately regenerated
>in order than he might believe, both by accent and resting upon that
>which was done for him, "extra." Righteousness which justifies is
>entirely outside of man.
>I really don't care what you think Augustine states, if in fact your
>conclusion is in agreement with what he really meant.
You should care, because Augustine knew Scripture much better
than you do. Besides: if you really don't care, then your quoting Augustine was
just a red herring.
Can you really believe that you are acting out of a "God-ward inclination" when
you post red herrings? I can't.
> I only care what God declares.
No, I don't believe this either. If you _did_ care what God declares, you would
never have called yourself a "sola fide man". For the expression "sola fide"
NEVER occurds in Scripture. The closest it gets is "ex fide tantum", but only
where it is immediately preceded by NON (James 2:24).
Nor would you brush off the opinion of Augustine so lightly.
>I quoted Augustine to show you that even the
>fathers disagreed with you, not that they are authoratative in every
>instance.
But that IS a dishonest use of the quote. And such habitual dishonesty is NOT an
example of the God-ward inclination you claim to have. Besides: I showed that
you did not understand what Augustine was really saying, as is usual when you
quote Augustine.
>There is only one unquestioned authority given to man, sola
>scriptura.
But you are NOT relying on this authority when you claim "total depravity". Nor
when you claim "The inclination is the end by which the
means is regulated.", nor when you claim "inclination cannot be affected
by the will". Not ONE of these can be based on Scripture alone. You base all of
these on Reform eisegesis, and then deny that you have done it.
Loren
> In article <wHdUc.9413$Kf4....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, Charles Hedrick says...
> >
> >I'm trying to make sense of the discussion between Loren and Matthew, and
> >not succeeding.
>
> Since you are certainly "of the Reform Tradition" yourself, it might actually
> help if you correct Loren for his misuse of Reform terminology. A lot of the
> confusion could be avoided, if he didn't insist on his own sense for the phrase
> "total depravity", even after he has been corrected _so_ many times.
>
Father. The second circle is God the Son Incarnate. The third circle
represents you and me as individuals.
Now, take the chaulk and make a dot or dash on the board, This
represents sin. How many dots do we put in the first circle? None.
That is obvious. In the second circle? None again. Now we come to
the third circle.
According to your position, you just put a bunch of dots in the
circle, perhaps even shade in a great majority of the circle and leave
a little bit untouched. The untouched represents your works of
righteousness. Your meritorious good works which you have
accomplished by your determined will.
The Reformed position shades in the third circle entirely. THIS is
total depravity. When God the Father looks at my circle of sin,
however, Christ's circle eclipses mine. This is Luther's
understanding as announced in the Latin phrase, "simul justus et
peccator" -at the same time just and sinner. I am justified by the
righeousness of Christ which is a righteousness entirely outside of my
own circle of merit/demerit. It is an alien righteousness because
"all our righteousness is as menstral rags."
Your position views man as having yet the ability to produce righteous
works worthy of God's recognition. The Reformed and biblical view is
that after the fall, man produced no righteous works because his
inclination, his desires out of which all his volitions flow, is
hopelessly and only other oriented. "Be ye holy as your Father is
holy" is the standard. Anything short of that is a sheer nothingness.
To fail in one point of the law is to fail in all. It is total.
Complete.
>
> >However one thing that is going on is that Loren is asserting that
> >humans can't get rid of the inclination to sin, and Matthew is
> >objecting.
>
> Yes, that is correct. I am even objecting to the misuse of the term
> 'inclination' to describe this.
>
Hardly an original term. It is term used by many, including some of
the fathers and even Plato and Arisitole. Edwards, who wrote probably
the greatest Christian treatese on free will, also uses the term.
Your objection is rooted in vanity for the term is not that
significant. I have also used bias or disposition or like adjectives.
Again, it matter not. What matters is the fact that it is the
antecedent out of which the will proceeds. It is the govenor. That
this "govenor" is hopelessly sinful. "No man can come unto Me unless
the Father which has sent me draws him." (Jn 6:44) "Whosoever
commits sin is the slave of sin" (8:34) and "without Me you can do
nothing" (15:5) ... acceptable or righteous, or good, or honoring,
etc. The two aspects are (1) the will wills its own sin. This is
self-determination. (2) Having so willed, it cannot unwillits own
sin. This is inability.
The illustration was that man wills to kill himself. Now that he
dead, he cannot will to make himself alive. This is total depravity.
Man killed him self when he revolted. Sin is not evolution. It is
revolution. And when Adam fell, the race fell with him. It is
invalid to raise an objection to this doctrine of all mens existence
in Adam. For the question, "how can these things be?" as in the
instance of Nicodemus must be answered by the affirmation that it is
the fact, though a mystery. It is not refutation to ask how the
nature exists before it is individualized or procreated, any more than
it is a refutation of the doctrine of the resurrection to ask how the
invisible substance of a human body still continues to exist after
death. Both are known from scripture.
>
> >What I *hope* Loren means is that they can't get rid of the
> >inclination to sin on their own,
>
> If this were what he meant, then he would still be guilty of provoking
> unnecessary battles in words, because we agree on that. But I doubt that is what
> he means.
>
An undetermined will is a contradiction in terms. As Leibnitz writes
in "Concerning Freedom", p. 669 [Erdmann's], A freedom o
findifference is impossible." The will is never indifferent. Our
consciousness never evidences an indifferent will. It is always
inclined. As I've stated before, the freedom of the will is primarily
as self-determination to a single end or goal, not a choice between
two yet unchosen contrary ends. The central and deepest activity of
the will is to be inclined or tending toward, not to be selecting or
chosing between, say, true good and evil. Rather it moves toward one
and only one point by the self-motion and self-decision of the
inclination. But we've been over all of this before.
>
> > and that even with the help of the
> >Holy Spirit the battle won't be entirely over until we join Christ
> >after death.
>
> Again, I doubt that this is what he really means.
>
This is exactly what I have said. I'm not going back and seek it out.
Nor am I going to waste my time to cut and paste your response. But
inclined to only being obtuse, you there did not agree with the
conclusion which Charles has rightly noted above. And you wonder why
often I simply don't respond.
>
> >But surely the Holy Spirit does help us change our inclination. The
> >Christian life is based on repentance.
>
> This _is_ what I have been trying to get him to admit. But no luck so far.
>
As I noted in my response to Charles, "help us change" seems to infer
a process. Justification is not a process. It is a legal, forensic
declaration. Regeneration is a once and for all event. It is
antecedent to anything conscious. It is part of the Father's drawing.
The effect of this regeneration of a holy inclination is that the
sinner is *then* able to see (accent) the light of the gospel, to
believe (place one's weight) in it. *Then" comes repentence. But
nothing occurs prior to the regeneration of the inclination, i.e.
being "born again."
>
> >Repentance is, among other
> >things, a step in the death of self, something we can do in
> >Christ.
>
> "Can do" or "must do"?
>
Can is correct. The ability is given after regeneration. It is given
after the sinner has already been declared righteous. Repentance is
not some veiled merit. It achieves nothing efficiently as to
salvation. It is a response, perhaps equal to the desire to be
baptised.
>
> > After all, in baptism Christ's death is made active in us as a
> >death to sin.
>
> But if it is "made active in us as a death to sin", then how can what is dead,
> i.e., sin, still have any activity at all, still tempting us to it?
>
"simul justus et peccator" We are saints who yet carry about with
them the inclination to sin, either willful or unconscious. This is
the natural man. This is living in the flesh. We are dead to it now
only positionally, that being "in Christ." Practically is illustrated
for us in Rom 7:15ff. One is a standing, the other is a state.
>
>And no,
> Romans 7 does _not_ answer the question, because Reform people keep insisting
> that when _we_ are called "dead in trespasses and sins", it means we can do
> NOTHING.
>
Objecting in cap's offers no more substantiation.
>
> You can't have your cake and eat it too, you can't claim "dead" means "dead" in
> one passage but not the other.
>
Sure you can. We have died "in Christ." That is our position. We
are "in Christ" seated in the heavenlies. But practically, we are
still struggling against the world, the flesh and the devil here on
earth. Only now, we have the permanent indwelling of the Spirit,
which by the will of the Father, empowers our regenerated inclination
to "both will and to do His good pleasure."
>
> >Luther and Calvin never meant to detract people from the battle
> >against sin.
>
> The road to WHAT is paved with good intentions?
>
> >Luther's protest started because he saw the Church as
> >teaching that one could be saved purely by doing external acts -- and
> >not even good works in the usual sense. His concern was that people
> >thought they could do these things, but avoid any real change.
>
> I won't deny that that was a major concern of his, but come now: in all
> generations people have been desperate to come up with an excuse to do this,
> nothing Luther did changed that 'inclincation'. It still exists among
> Protestants, just in a very different form than among RCs and Orthodox.
>
This is why I maintain that you are blind to the full parameters of
the situation. I have made the distinction between "religion" and
biblical Christianity (and you have ridiculed me for it). Religion is
only and always like, and I forget his name, the individual who is
sentenced to pushing a rock up a mountain. Mental culture, even in
the religious world, does not eradicate a single tendency of moral
depravity. It only veils and refines them all, far from redeeming the
man. Biblical Christianity, on the other hand, is not man's movement
toward God, but the story of God's movement toward man. He does what
man cannot do for himself -justification "extra nos."
>
> >This is Jesus' method: make the tree good, and the fruit will
> >follow.
>
> But WHO does the making? Who has to labor at it? We do, yet we do not get to
> call it our own labor. This is what gets lost in the heat of "faith vs. works"
> discussions.
>
Then why are we called to cease from striving to enter into His rest?
Again, justification is the issue. The Reformer maintains that it is
a declaration of God done for and outside of the sinner. The
catholic, on the other hand, maintains that is done in and by the
sinner by an infusion of grace.
Loren
>
>
> why are you so surprised by this accusation, when it
> was you who raised such an accusation against RC and Orthodox first, implicitly?
To quote you, "_you_" are different in that you make it personal. My
argument has always been against the theological system, always
differentiating the individual from the ideology. The individual may
certainly have a true and effective salvation even though the church
which they attend teaches heresy. But you do not make this
distinction. You leveled your attack against me personally and for
that you stand under the scriptural condemnation of being judged as
you have judged others.
Matthew Johnson
>
>Matthew Johnson <matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:<jHxUc.29436$SC1....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...
>>In article <wHdUc.9413$Kf4....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, Charles Hedrick says...
>> >
>> >I'm trying to make sense of the discussion between Loren and Matthew, and
>> >not succeeding.
>>
>> Since you are certainly "of the Reform Tradition" yourself, it might actually
>> help if you correct Loren for his misuse of Reform terminology. A lot of the
>>confusion could be avoided, if he didn't insist on his own sense for the phrase
>> "total depravity", even after he has been corrected _so_ many times.
>>
>We draw three circles on the board.
Who is this 'we'? I don't!
[snip]
>According to your position, you just put a bunch of dots in the
>circle, perhaps even shade in a great majority of the circle and leave
>a little bit untouched.
You have no grounds for asserting you know this much about my position. THis is
just your arrogant presumption raising its ugly head again.
>This is Luther's
>understanding as announced in the Latin phrase, "simul justus et
>peccator" -at the same time just and sinner.
Well, at least now you are using the Latin correctly. But alas, the theology it
represents is jus tplain wrong.
> I am justified by the
>righeousness of Christ which is a righteousness entirely outside of my
>own circle of merit/demerit. It is an alien righteousness because
>"all our righteousness is as menstral rags."
This is Reform eisegesis. You are interpreting Isaiah out of context, and in a
particular way NOBODY did before Luther. That should have been a strong enough
hint to cause them to reavalute the rashness of their reasoning, but somewhow,
it was not.
>Your position views man as having yet the ability to produce righteous
>works worthy of God's recognition.
Nonsense. If you would actually _read_ before you charge off on your misguided
Crusades, you would know better than to make such an accusation. But no matter
how often you accuse others of "not expounding", you never wait for them to do,
you rush off to make groundless accusations instead.
> The Reformed and biblical view is
>that after the fall,
The Reformed view and the Biblical view are NOT the same.
> man produced no righteous works because his
>inclination,
The Bible never uses the word 'inclination' this way, so HOW can you so glibly
claim that this is the Biblical view? Only your arrogant rashness justifies
this.
> his desires out of which all his volitions flow,
This phrase is hopelessly misguided. Man's 'volitions' do NOT "all flow out of
his desires". On the contrary: even your choice of words here shows _serious_
confusion about the difference between wish, will, the thing willed,
inclincation (in its _various_ senses).
> is
>hopelessly and only other oriented. "Be ye holy as your Father is
>holy" is the standard.
And you are NOT doing this when you charge off on these Crusades without even
reading what others have already written to you. That is what should be obvious.
Change your evil ways, Loren, before dreaming of gaining any credibility for
yourself when you talk about 'will' and 'inclination'.
> Anything short of that is a sheer nothingness.
Sheer nothingness is all you ahve to base your mis-statements about 'will' and
'inclination' onl.
> To fail in one point of the law is to fail in all. It is total.
So why do you keep up your total failure to make coherent, supportable
statements about 'will' and 'inclincation'?
>Complete.
>>
>> >However one thing that is going on is that Loren is asserting that
>> >humans can't get rid of the inclination to sin, and Matthew is
>> >objecting.
>>
>> Yes, that is correct. I am even objecting to the misuse of the term
>> 'inclination' to describe this.
>>
>Hardly an original term.
I never implied it was. What _is_ original, OTOH, is your misuse of it.
> It is term used by many, including some of
>the fathers and even Plato and Arisitole.
And what do you hope to achieve by pointing out what I already know so much
better than you? Indeed, Loren, if you really understood your own observation
here, you would be _ashamed_ to post such nonsense about it as you have. For as
I have already pointed out to you SEVERAL TIMES NOW, Plato, Aristotle and the
Fathers used SEVERAL different words, all translatable into English as
'inclination', yet they all have DIFFERENT MEANINGS. Without taking into account
the differences, you can NEVER rise above your gibberish.
> Edwards, who wrote probably
>the greatest Christian treatese on free will,
That was not "the greatest Christian treatese[sic]". On the contrary: it too is
a jumble of confusion, making the same mistake you insist on, ignoring the
differences the Fathers respected.
That is why, Loren, it was not Edwards, but the Fathers, who wrote "the greates
Christian treatise on free will", and that treatise is "To Marinos, on Will" at
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/greek/maximos/prosmarinon1.html#prologos.
> also uses the term.
But as I have pointed out so often, he fails to observe the essential
distinctions the Fathers knew so well.
>Your objection is rooted in vanity for the term is not that
>significant.
OH, so it is _my_ objection that is rooted in vanity? Now that is funny, Loren,
especially coming from you.
> I have also used bias or disposition or like adjectives.
> Again, it matter not.
Yes, it does matter. For that matter, it also matters that you sank to such a
abysmal depth of pretension as to turn your back on sound Modern English
Grammar, and in poor imitation of KJV Scripture, write "it matter not" where you
should have written "it does not matter".
That tells us a lot about _your_ 'inclination', Loren, and nothing it tells us
is complimentary. Nor does it incline the reader to give your words any
credibility.
> What matters is the fact that it is the
>antecedent out of which the will proceeds.
It is not. The 'antecedent' for the natural will is the natural good for the
willer, and the 'antecedent' for the gnomic will is NOT any one simple thing,
since the gnomic will depends on a 'confluence' of will (in its most general
sense, 'appetency'), and counsel and judgement.
> It is the govenor.
Only in a robot. But I have noticed that the partisans of Reform theology in
this NG love to consider themselves robots -- as if that would absolve them of
responsibility for their sins.
Who _cares_ what Leibnitz writes? He did not believe in the Christian God, but
rather in the "unmoved prime mover" of the Deists. Such a belief was all too
common in his day, because people were so impressed with the new Newtonian view
of the universe.
>A freedom o
>findifference is impossible." The will is never indifferent. Our
>consciousness never evidences an indifferent will. It is always
>inclined. As I've stated before, the freedom of the will is primarily
>as self-determination to a single end or goal, not a choice between
>two yet unchosen contrary ends.
You love to repeat yourself, don't you? I didn't find this convincing when you
said it before, either. And I told you why, but you had no topical response,
only bluster.
> The central and deepest activity of
>the will is to be inclined or tending toward, not to be selecting or
>chosing between, say, true good and evil.
You are blurring natural and gnomic will -- with disastrous confusion as the
result.
> Rather it moves toward one
>and only one point by the self-motion and self-decision of the
>inclination. But we've been over all of this before.
Your memory fails you again. No, there is a lot new here. But it is _still_
unsupported. That is why you are seeing so much denial of your rash statements.
>>
>> > and that even with the help of the
>> >Holy Spirit the battle won't be entirely over until we join Christ
>> >after death.
>>
>> Again, I doubt that this is what he really means.
>>
>This is exactly what I have said. I'm not going back and seek it out.
> Nor am I going to waste my time to cut and paste your response. But
>inclined to only being obtuse, you there did not agree with the
>conclusion which Charles has rightly noted above. And you wonder why
>often I simply don't respond.
>>
>> >But surely the Holy Spirit does help us change our inclination. The
>> >Christian life is based on repentance.
>>
>> This _is_ what I have been trying to get him to admit. But no luck so far.
>>
>As I noted in my response to Charles, "help us change" seems to infer
>a process. Justification is not a process. It is a legal, forensic
>declaration.
But this is where your Reform obsession with legalism has led you astray. Just
because Paul chooses to use a legal metaphor does NOT mean that you are
justified in asserting _every_ aspect of the legal analogy! Yet you resort to
this unjustifiedexpedient over and over again.
> Regeneration is a once and for all event.
No. Have you forgotten your own words about time and eternity? How can you
justify (without relying on overinterpreting Paul's legal metaphors) denying
that regeneration takes place in eternity, too?
> It is
>antecedent to anything conscious.
No. The repentant sinner must consciously come to the laver of regeneration
before the regeneration.
> It is part of the Father's drawing.
No.
> The effect of this regeneration of a holy inclination is that the
>sinner is *then* able to see (accent) the light of the gospel, to
>believe (place one's weight) in it.
So you say. But with your repeated insistence on Reform theology _instead_ of
the Gospel, you paint a picture of yourself as a man who has not done this yet!
> *Then" comes repentence. But
>nothing occurs prior to the regeneration of the inclination, i.e.
>being "born again."
This not only flies in the face of the venerable tradition that calls _Baptism_
"the laver of regeneration", it even flies in the face of Christ's own words in
Jn 3, naming Baptism "of water and spirit". Bart has already explained this to
you, I see you ignored him as well.
>> >Repentance is, among other
>> >things, a step in the death of self, something we can do in
>> >Christ.
>>
>> "Can do" or "must do"?
>>
>Can is correct. The ability is given after regeneration. It is given
>after the sinner has already been declared righteous.
But if he has already been "declared righteous", why is he still repenting? You
_have_ put the cart before the horse here, subtly yet dangerously changing the
meanings of FAR too many words in the Gospel.
> Repentance is
>not some veiled merit.
This is a red herring.
>It achieves nothing efficiently as to
>salvation.
So you love to repeat. I didn't find it convincing earlier, either.
>It is a response, perhaps equal to the desire to be
>baptised.
Are you unaware of the name "second baptism" for repentance?
>>
>> > After all, in baptism Christ's death is made active in us as a
>> >death to sin.
>>
>>But if it is "made active in us as a death to sin", then how can what is dead,
>> i.e., sin, still have any activity at all, still tempting us to it?
>>
>"simul justus et peccator"
That is NOT an answer. You said it was DEAD. So how can it still tempt us?
>One is a standing, the other is a state.
[snip]
But there IS no such difference between the two. That is WHY the word 'state'
derives from the verb 'stare', meaning 'to stand'.
>>
>>And no,
>> Romans 7 does _not_ answer the question, because Reform people keep insisting
>> that when _we_ are called "dead in trespasses and sins", it means we can do
>> NOTHING.
>>
>Objecting in cap's offers no more substantiation.
True, but it helps make clear what you must address -- but still stubbornly fail
to address.
>>
>>You can't have your cake and eat it too, you can't claim "dead" means "dead" in
>> one passage but not the other.
>>
>Sure you can.
Only if you are willing to descend into folly and illogic. But apparently this
disastrous option has great attraction for you.
> We have died "in Christ."
So you say, but you really don't act like it; those who have "died in Christ"
cannot be happy to descend into such folly and illogic as you do.
> That is our position. We
>are "in Christ" seated in the heavenlies. But practically, we are
>still struggling against the world, the flesh and the devil here on
>earth. Only now, we have the permanent indwelling of the Spirit,
>which by the will of the Father, empowers our regenerated inclination
>to "both will and to do His good pleasure."
Then since what you are doing is obviously NOT His will and good pleasure, the
Spirit that you say dwells in you must be _awfully_ weak! Yet Reform people
complain about 'Arminians' calling grace 'weak'!
[snip]
>I have made the distinction between "religion" and
>biblical Christianity (and you have ridiculed me for it). Religion is
>only and always like, and I forget his name, the individual who is
>sentenced to pushing a rock up a mountain.
But this is _patently_ false. That is why I criticize you for pushing this
falsehood. Why, you even contradict James, who _does_ use the word 'religion' to
mean something VERY different from the sentence of Sisyphus.
>Mental culture, even in
>the religious world, does not eradicate a single tendency of moral
>depravity.
It does if you understand the term "mental culture" in the correct sense. But
this is not the usual term for it anyway, so _why_ are you bringing up this red
herring?
>It only veils and refines them all, far from redeeming the
>man. Biblical Christianity, on the other hand, is not man's movement
>toward God, but the story of God's movement toward man. He does what
>man cannot do for himself -justification "extra nos."
There is much more in "Biblical Christianity" than just "justification 'extra
nos'". If only you would give the Gospel writers the same attention and
credibility you give Luther, this would be _so_ much easier to show to you!
>> >This is Jesus' method: make the tree good, and the fruit will
>> >follow.
>>
>> But WHO does the making? Who has to labor at it? We do, yet we do not get to
>>call it our own labor. This is what gets lost in the heat of "faith vs. works"
>> discussions.
>>
>Then why are we called to cease from striving to enter into His rest?
We are NOT so called. What passage are you misinterpreting to come up with THIS?
>Again, justification is the issue. The Reformer maintains that it is
>a declaration of God done for and outside of the sinner. The
>catholic, on the other hand, maintains that is done in and by the
>sinner by an infusion of grace.
Show me a citation in an official statement of Catholic dogma, such as Denzinger
or the Catechism, that supports your statement here. I have already explained to
you why I think you are wrong.
>> Well, and what else should Loren _expect_ when his _own_ emphasis
>> is so VERY FAR from those "points of contact"?
And sure enough, your latest post shows how justified these previous words of
mine really are: for yoa are _still_ stubbornly hammering away on your misguided
obsessions, which are ALL so VERY FAR from those "points of contact".
Oh, if only you would read Augustine for yourself, instead of relying on
careless quotes and even more careless interpretations of him in Reform authors!
Matthew Johnson
>
>One problem in these discussions is that many writers have a very
>definite idea of what order things come in the Christian life. But
>real people aren't alike, and different people experience things
>differently.
>
>In principle I have to agree with Loren that the activity of the Holy
>Spirit precedes repentance.
Well, there is nothing wrong with that. But Loren goes further than this. He
denies the relevance of any activity of the _penitent_ during this phase, giving
relevance only to the alleged activity of the Holy Spirit.
> Without God's help, we are unable to truly
>assess our own situation candidly enough to do what I would classify
>as real Christian repentance.
And if Loren would ever _get_ to this point, he would have found that we agree
on this, too. But he is too busy flying off the handle.
>But people don't necessarily develop in nice, neat stages. Hence the
>famous prayer "I believe; help my unbelief!". It may be that
>someone's first Christian experience will be realizing that their life
>is a mess and that something must change.
This is where your position, Charles, sounds _so_ much more rational and based
on reality than Loren's!
> This is a form of
>repentance. Others may experience something else first. In fact it
>may start with something that isn't explicitly Christian at at all.
>There are more and less mature forms of repentance. Because true
>repentance comes only through grace, at the beginning of our
>experience we are more likely to make excuses for ourselves, and to be
>sorry more for the the bad results we experience than for the effect
>of our sins on others and God. But grace is there even at the
>beginning, so even the first groping steps are part of a regeneration
>that at the point is just starting.
And by admiting that the regeneration is at that point still only _starting_,
you have again established your position as far more believable than Loren's.
For Loren insists on not only a single, point action, but a purely forensic one.
>In Calvin's description, the process starts with God's decision to
>save us, as a result of which he engrafts us in Christ, we receive
>this in faith, and this results in the dual effects of justification
>and sanctification (or as Calvin normally prefers, forgiveness and
>regeneration). This is a fine description for purposes of exposition.
>But the way it plays itself out in any particular person's experience
>is more complex, with some aspects being almost invisible at the
>beginning, but reinforcing each other over time.
Well, perhaps Calvin could have avoided a lot of the criticism he received both
in his own time and ever since if he had _written_ about it as if he was aware
of this "way it plays out". But as it was, what you call "fine for purposes of
exposition" really was not.
[snip]
>The issue of how a sacrament is connected to the reality is a complex
>one. I don't regard sacraments as "just a symbol" in the usual
>dismissive sense.
That is comforting to hear. Especially after encountering the "usual dismissive
sense" so often in this NG.
>But neither do I believe that regeneration is unable
>to start before the physical act of baptism. The sacrament includes a
>reality that isn't limited to the time when the water hits.
Believe me, Charles, when we Orthodox talk about the necessity for baptism in
water and Spirit, we do NOT intend to limit regeneration, either. On the
contrary: under VERY exceptional circumstances, we are even willing to admit
that a valid baptism may occur without water. But in the only such case I heard
of, it was attended by a miracle that removed all doubt.
Likewise, in very exceptional cases, we even admit unusual ministers of the
baptism, such as that martyr who, while still a pagan, did a skit on the stage
to make fun of Christian baptism: but while pouring the water over his head, he
really _did_ convert. So we accept that baptism as valid, although it was
self-administered (don't try this at home). And as soon as his fellow actors
figured out he was not joking any more, they turned him over to be executed.
So no, we do not limit grace by insisting on Baptism in its proper form.
Loren
> beginning, so even the first groping steps are part of a regeneration
> that at the point is just starting.
>
Then you view regeneration, i.e. "born again", as a process? I feel
that the Reformers did not hold this view. My interpretation and my
stance is that regeneration is techically the act of justification.
There are many aspects included in regeneration, but it is at that
time we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and because the HS is a
personal and not some divine liquid, the sinner gets all of Him all at
once. As many Reformers have concluded, it is not that we get more of
Him, rather, He gets more of us. This would be a detail in the
doctrine of sanctification which is rooted in justification, a one
time declarative, forensic act, but sanctification has abiding result.
Regeneration is specifically the divine regeneration of a new
capacity, a new inclination toward Godliness which has no relationship
with the old capacity which totally depraved.
>
> In Calvin's description, the process starts with God's decision to
> save us, as a result of which he engrafts us in Christ, we receive
> this in faith, and this results in the dual effects of justification
> and sanctification (or as Calvin normally prefers, forgiveness and
> regeneration). This is a fine description for purposes of exposition.
>
If I misunderstand you, then forgive. But are you equating
justification with forgiveness and sanctification with regeneration?
IF anything, the sumbiosis is exactly opposite. Justification is part
of the regenerative while forgiveness is a process within
sanctification. Both of the former are punctiliar. They never
increase of decrease. Sanctification is based upon and operates out
of the fact of the divine declaration of justification. Justification
involve two imputations: 1) the imputation of the sinners sin to
Christ and 2) Christ's merited righteousness imputed to the sinner.
>
> But the way it plays itself out in any particular person's experience
> is more complex, with some aspects being almost invisible at the
> beginning, but reinforcing each other over time. There's nothing
> unReformed about acknowledging that repentance helps us increase our
> faith, that our inclinations are slowly regenerated over time,
>
No, the inclination does not increase of decrease. The inclination is
more and more yielded to or operated out of by Spirit empowered
volitions. But the inclination is static. The inclination is never
affected by the will. The believer has two inclination, one being the
old sin nature and the second being the new holy nature. An
inclination is a capacity or an orientation out of which the believer
yields his/her will to, depending whether they are operating out of
the flesh or if they operating by means of the Spirit.
>
> etc. The Holy Spirit acts through means, as well as directly.
>
> Protestant churches have the same practice that Matthew reports for
> the Orthodox: we wouldn't baptise an adult unless they have confessed
> their sins, and professed Christian faith. But surely the Holy Spirit
> is already at work in them at that point, so regeneration has already
> started.
>
Again, I don't mean to belabor the point. "Sanctification" is started
based upon the fact that the believer has been regenerated. The
increase involves the believers growing desire to operate out of the
new inclination rather than feeding the fleshy one. The HS is able to
operate in the life of the believer because regeneration has already
been accomplished.
>
> The issue of how a sacrament is connected to the reality is a complex
> one. I don't regard sacraments as "just a symbol" in the usual
> dismissive sense. But neither do I believe that regeneration is unable
> to start before the physical act of baptism. The sacrament includes a
> reality that isn't limited to the time when the water hits.
>
I view the sacraments to be on a par with the "altar of Witness" as
detailed in Joshua 22. That altar was a memorial. It had real worth
and purpose but it was not the true altar which only one existed, that
being in Jerusalem. For NT purposes, the sacrament of the Lord's
supper is an "altar of Witness" of the true cross work of Christ.
Water baptism is an "altar of Witness" of true regeneration/Divine
indwelling. As no sacrifice was allowed to be performed on the "altar
of Witness," so the sacraments do not have causality. Rather, they
are holy memorials and have worth only in that aspect. They have no
merit in and of themselves anymore than the "altar of Witness" was
able to have sacrifices offered on it for the covering of sin.
If a believer never participates in the sacrament of water baptism, he
is no less a saint. His spiritual growth will not be more appreciable
because of it or less appreciable any more than if he never actually
is baptised in water. Is it beneficial for conscious sake? Sure.
Does it help root the believer in the church? Sure. But the
sacraments in and of themselves cause no more or little effect than
the conscious yielding/worship of the individual believer.
For those who object, the question could be asked, "Do you really
think that the fruit of the tree of good and evil, in and of itself
produced in man his depravity or do you think that the self-determined
inclination to desire that knowledge was the true causation?" Again,
the issue is resolved by the dictum "the inner always preceeds the
outer."
hed...@geneva.rutgers.edu
about regeneration and other issues between him and Matthew Johnson:
>Then you view regeneration, i.e. "born again", as a process? I feel
>that the Reformers did not hold this view. My interpretation and my
>stance is that regeneration is techically the act of justification.
...
>If I misunderstand you, then forgive. But are you equating
>justification with forgiveness and sanctification with regeneration?
>IF anything, the sumbiosis is exactly opposite. Justification is part
>of the regenerative while forgiveness is a process within
>sanctification. Both of the former are punctiliar. They never
...
>No, the inclination does not increase of decrease. The inclination is
>more and more yielded to or operated out of by Spirit empowered
>volitions. But the inclination is static. The inclination is never
>affected by the will. The believer has two inclination, one being the
Let's look at Calvin's descriptions of regeneration in the Institutes.
See 3.11. In it he summarizes the relationship among faith,
justification and sanctification.
The whole may be thus summed up: Christ given to us by the kindness of
God is apprehended and possessed by faith, by means of which we obtain
in particular a twofold benefit; first, being reconciled by the
righteousness of Christ, God becomes, instead of a judge, an indulgent
Father; and, secondly, being sanctified by his Spirit, we aspire to
integrity and purity of life. This second benefit --
viz. regeneration, appears to have been already sufficiently
discussed. On the other hand, the subject of justification was
discussed more cursorily, because it seemed of more consequence first
to explain that the faith by which alone, through the mercy of God, we
obtain free justification, is not destitute of good works; and also to
show the true nature of these good works on which this question partly
turns.
Here he equates regeneration with sanctification. In 3.3 he also
identifies it with repentance, because repentance is the process of
reorienting our lives towards God. Regeneration is thus a lifelong
process. He derides certain anabaptists, who think that you repent
right before being baptized, and that's it:
Such are the fruits which their giddy spirit produces, that
repentance, which in every Christian man lasts as long as life, is
with them completed in a few short days. [3.3.2]
Here is his summary of repentance and regeneration:
In one word, then, by repentance I understand regeneration,31 305 the
only aim of which is to form in us anew the image of God, which was
sullied, and all but effaced by the transgression of Adam. So the
Apostle teaches when he says, "We all with open face beholding as in a
glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from
glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord." Again, "Be renewed in
the spirit of your minds" and "put ye on the new man, which is
renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him." 31 306
Accordingly through the blessing of Christ we are renewed by that
regeneration into the righteousness of God from which we had fallen
through Adam, the Lord being pleased in this manner to restore the
integrity of all whom he appoints to the inheritance of life. This
renewal, indeed, is not accomplished in a moment, a day, or a year,
but by uninterrupted, sometimes even by slow progress God abolishes
the remains of carnal corruption in his elect, cleanses them from
pollution, and consecrates them as his temples, restoring all their
inclinations to real purity, so that during their whole lives they may
practice repentance, and know that death is the only termination to
this warfare. [3.3.9]
Note by the way that his speaks of restoring our inclinations.
In contrast, justification happens immediately and completely. It is
God's acceptance of us.
21. Let us now consider the truth of what was said in definition
-- viz. that justification by faith is reconciliation with God, and
that this consists solely in the remission of sins.
That's why I say the justification is effectively forgiveness.
It's worth looking at the middle section of this article, supplied by
J.I. Packer, http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/regenera.htm He notes
that Calvin used the term as I do, but that in later Calvinist
theology it was narrowed. I tend to be guided by Calvin more than
later Calvinists. Later Calvinism tended to emphasize predestination
more than Calvin did. I think that influenced this change. Packer implies
that it was associated with a mistranslation of /epistrepho/.
John Sparks
> >my imagination.
> You know, there must be a lot of posters in this NG who would envy you.
After
> all, according to your theory, all you have to do to make me go away is
wake up!
> So wake up, already!
LOL.
Isn't Mark's little theory similar to Mary Baker's Christian Science
nonsense? They believe we are all a dream in the mind of God and that none
of us exist.
I call this "row boat" philosophy ("row, row, row your boat, life is but a
dream") :-)
I think everyone who truly believes this life is just a dream should line up
on the edge of the Grand Canyon and jump off. If they are right, they will
prove it by not turning into jello at the bottom of the GC. If they are
wrong, the world just rid itself of a bunch of idiots.
Loren
> >> > He doesn't care what it takes to get the job done. All he wants is
> >> >to get drunk. I've worked with alcoholic's in inner city Chicago.
> >> >I'm talking about drop out of society bums who panhandle corners to
> >> >scrape a couple of bucks together to buy the cheapest alcohol they can
> >> >get. They are totally indifferent to anything and everything except
> >> >the goal. Again, you seem not to grasp the basics of the dynamic.
> >>
> >> No, it is you who do not grasp the basics. If you did grasp it, you would not
> >> have said _so_ much of what you said! You would also know how wrong it
> >>was, by considering the analogous situation: how does this drunkards
> >>'indifference'
> >>differ from the state _you_ would be in yourself, after going without food for a
> >>week? Yet Christ went for forty days without, and _still_ refused to turn stones
> >> into bread!
> >>
> >That is because He did not self determine an inclination other than to
> >please God.
>
> You miss the point. Of course He didn't do this. But you only considered half of
> what I said. Where's the other half? What state would _you_ be in after going
> without food for a week? How would that differ from the drunkard's? Until you
> answer this, you cannot understand what Christ accomplished for our salvation in
> the desert -- or in the Garden of Gethsemane.
>
I understood your point. Christ's will was as indifferent to sin as
the drunkard's will was to holiness. Volitions are indifferent in and
of themselves because they only proceed out of the inclination.
Christ's inclination was solely God oriented. Because it was such, He
free will choices were indifferent to the end because the end is
already determined by the inclination. A holy inclination inclines
only to please God. No volition ever operates contrary to its
inclination. In that Christ only operated from a holy inclination, in
that narrow understanding, no, He could not have willfully sinned.
However, as it was with Adam, the real question is whether or not He
could self-determine a rebellious inclination. A fallen inclination
can and does only produce fallen volitions. A holy (regenerated)
inclination can and does only produce righteous, God honoring
volitions. But because the believer is at once, both sinner and saint
(justified), he has two inclinations out of which the volitions
operate.
You seem to see contradiction where there is none. As the drunkard
has only the orientation to gratify self, so Christ's only orientation
was to do the will of the Father. Unregenerate man is depraved
because he has only the single inclination. No volitions to the
contrary are achievable because there is no secondary, holy
inclination from which to proceed.
> >By bringing up this account, you illustrate that Christ
> >stood at the very place that Adam did when he could either remain true
> >in his orientation toward God or he could follow after his wife (self
> >orientation.) Christ, tested in all points, did not fall from the
> >holy inclination.
>
> The _very_ place? Do you then believe that Adam too, had the same union without
> confusion of the human and divine natures? If not, then HOW can this be "the
> very place"?
>
Because I believe the kenosis to be to such an extent that
consciously, after His incarnation, He was also derivative as man was
so created. In one sense, true, there cannot be equality. However,
on the conscious level, I do indeed see an identical re-enactment,
only Jesus never inwardly self-determined to go His own way.
Remember, the woman was deceived, but not Adam. Adam's change in
orientation was self-determined.
>
> > Christ's
> >was always and only moved spontaneously to the will of the Father as
> >the supreme end.
>
> And why do you think it was 'spontaneously' moved? Are you using 'spontaneously'
> as an antonym for 'deliberately'? But when fallen man acts 'spontaneously', he
> does something VERY different from what Christ did.
>
No. You can't jump that far in the analysis. Fallen man acts
"spontaneously" in accord with his fallen inclination. It's just that
that spontaneity is predetermined by the inclination. The drunk is
free to chose whether to drink and pleasure self or not to drink and
pleasure self for a 1000 other selfish reasons. But the orientation
never changes. It is wholly and solely selfish even if the outward
exhibition may seem to have "godly" or "otherly" attributes. The
fact remains, the volition cannot act contrary to the "bent" or
inclination.
>
> Also, Christ's WHAT? Will? Or inclination?
>
> How can you have the gall to complain about my not 'discussing' when you leave
> such a crucial assertion so sloppily constructed?
>
Not writing exhaustively and "sloppily constructed" are not one and
the same.
>
> >John 8:42 ... I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent
> >Me.
>
> What theologically biased translation is THIS? There is NOTHING in the Greek
> text corresponding to 'initiative' here! On what basis do you insert words into
> the text? The text only has "AP' EMAYTOY".
>
NASB
TDNT, Vol 3, pp. 55-56.
>
> >John 15:10 "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love;
> >just as I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love.
>
> And you are not doing this,
>
Stick to the point of the discussion, will you?
>
> when you accuse RCs of exalting the intellect in
> their theology, even to the point of exempting the mind from the damage of the
> Fall.
>
Aquinas is the source. Even CS Lewis expounded this based upon
Aquinas. So I'm hardly being novel to reveal this.
>
> >"Abiding" is nothing short of operating out of the regenerated
> >inclination to please God, for the Christian.
>
> And again: you are not doing this when you accuse RCs of exalting the intellect
> in their theology, even to the point of exempting the mind from the damage of
> the Fall.
>
Again, why can't you discuss the point being made instead of throwing
up all these road blocks? Is it that you have no answer therefore you
are reduced to such a response?
>
> > For Christ it was
> >nothing short of delighting to do the will of the Father who sent Him.
> > "Not my will, but Thine."
>
> You say this as if I was supposed to bask in its pious sound, and refuse to
> inquire further. But I will not fall into that trap. Instead, I will ask, as I
> have asked before: which of Christ's two wills (one proper to each nature) do
> you think He is referring to here as "my will"? I don't remember you answering
> this.
>
It should be recognized if, as you say you do, you understood the
dynamic which I have been advocating. That you would ask this
question tells me you do not understand otherwise you would have known
the answer which I would give you. And if you reply with the notion
"I was only testing you", then I will reciprocate your own rules.
First you tell me what my answer is according to the
self-determination/inclination/volition dynamic which you continue to
declare comprehending.
There are only two possibilities as to why you ask the question above.
Either you are testing me, in which case prove yourself by stating my
position, or you don't, as you say, understand the dynamic involved.
>
> >> Then again, just the fact that you still stoop so low as to call them 'bums'
> >> also shows you learned nothing.
> >>
> >If you had worked with them, you would know that it is their term.
>
> No, it is not. Somehow, I find it easier to believe that _you_ think it is their
> term because you just didn't listen when they used other terms to refer to
> themselves. But I have heard them protest loudly when this term is used. And
> they have the right to protest.
>
Their protest is that only they are allowed to use the term, not that
the term isn't the correct one. Again, if you had worked with them,
then you would understand this dynamic as well.
>
> >But that you judge me only reveals openly your own thought processes.
>
> Ah, if only you could be so observant of your _own_ thought processes!
>
This is a denial?
>
> >> The great Augustine would NEVER have commanded us to do the impossible, to
> >>change our own inclination, unless he knew what you still blindly deny: it _is_
> >> possible, by the grace of God. But "to love o.s., NOT in loving o.s." is
> >> _definitely_ a major change of inclination.
> >>
> >Then you align yourself with the RC doctrine of infused of grace.
> >There is no third way here. Either the Spirit of God works
> >immediately or mediately.
>
> But there are _so_ many different ways to see even _this_ dichotomy. 'Mediate'
> in which sense? And if we are going to follow the RCS in allowing multiple
> definitions of grace, why not allow one to work mediately, and another
> immediately?
>
You can confuse anything. I don't mean you personally, I mean anyone.
But the dichotomy is real. Sure there are complications (formal),
but that doesn't deny the basic tenet. When concerning justification,
there are only two ways to view it. It is either "for us" (alien to
us) or it is "in us" (admixture).
Regardless, you again fail to disclose or to discuss. Why do you hide
behind your veil?
>
> >The sinner does not, because
> >he cannot, choose or resolve to incline himself to God.
>
> No, he can, and he must. If he fails to do so, he remains outside in the cold.
> That IS part of the nature of repentance.
>
Repentance cannot take place until man is given a new inclination to
do so. The will cannot act contrary to the inclination and "there is
none who seeks [inclines] for God." You may reject this analysis but
you do so without any debate, only negation.
>
> >Rather, God the Spirit immediately inclines him "to will and to do."
>
> You are quoting Paul out of context: he was not talking about the unregenerate
> sinner when he wrote that.
>
That might be true but the principle still remains true. Man cannot,
even after regeneration, do "the good that I wish [incline to do]."
apart from/"according to the Spirit." Christ was "led by the Spirit"
and if it was true of He who only had a holy inclination, then how
infinitely more true is it of men who yet retain the sinful
inclination?
>
> > In His regeneration, God determines the will by renewing it.
>
> NO. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that. That is Reform eisegesis.
>
You object but, sigh, again you provide no argumentation.
Rom. 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to
boast about; but not before God.
Rom. 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? " And Abraham believed God,
and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."
If there was no assent, then how could Abraham have believed? Faith
is always rooted in knowledge, perceived or real.
Heb. 6:4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and
have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the
Holy Spirit,
"Enlightenment" must first take place.
John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you,
unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
The order is specific. First one must be born/regenerated.
"Enlightenment" cannot occur until after regeneration. And as in
physical birth, so in spiritual rebirth. It is the parent who is the
effectual cause -not the child. Therefore justification is of a
necessity, extra nos. It is entirely of grace and entirely a work of
God -outside of man.
>
> >In the case of
> >Adam's apostasy, he determined himself to evil without any immediate
> >operation of God.
>
> 'Determination' to evil is not in Scripture, either. That is Reform eisegesis.
>
Ever see anything in the scriptures formally demonstrating the
existence of God? Why? Because it is everywhere assumed, even as the
depravity of man is, even as endless punishment is. It was a "self"
determination, ex niliho.
>
> >But by grace, fallen man is immediately regenerated
> >in order than he might believe, both by accent and resting upon that
> >which was done for him, "extra." Righteousness which justifies is
> >entirely outside of man.
>
> >I really don't care what you think Augustine states, if in fact your
> >conclusion is in agreement with what he really meant.
>
> You should care, because Augustine knew Scripture much better
> than you do. Besides: if you really don't care, then your quoting Augustine was
> just a red herring.
>
Presumption put forth as a truth.
>
> Can you really believe that you are acting out of a "God-ward inclination" when
> you post red herrings? I can't.
>
A conclusion based upon a false presumption. A house built on sand.
I quoted Augustine because you hold no one in authority beyond the
fathers. In effect, you stagnate the revelation of God. You believe
in only de-evolution within the Church, all the while having an
eschatology which teaches otherwise. The Truth is consistent to
itself.
>
> > I only care what God declares.
>
> No, I don't believe this either. If you _did_ care what God declares, you would
> never have called yourself a "sola fide man". For the expression "sola fide"
> NEVER occurds in Scripture.
>
Neither does the word, "Trinity." So what? Both principles are clear
enough for those who would but rely upon the Spirit instead of the
tradition of men.
>
> The closest it gets is "ex fide tantum", but only
> where it is immediately preceded by NON (James 2:24).
>
Now who is confusing the context? James was what, talking about the
dynamics of justification or the display or results of true
justification? I believe it was the later. His argument operates on
a different objective than that of Paul in Romans.
Rom. 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to
boast about; but not before God.
How could Paul have made it any plainer?
>
> >There is only one unquestioned authority given to man, sola
> >scriptura.
>
> But you are NOT relying on this authority when you claim "total depravity".
>
Everywhere implied. Why was man removed from the garden? If he
wasn't totally depraved, then what harm would it have done if he had
eaten of the tree of life? Why a Divine Redeemer if the effects of
the fall where not total?
"By the offense of one judgment came upon ALL men to condemnation."
(Rom 5:18)
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by
sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." (Rom
5:12)
"all sinned" (Rom 3:23)
Man isn't commanded to choose death. He is exhorted to choose life
because death is already presumed.
The entire eschatological plan of God reveals that, left to himself,
man only thinks of himself. No saint ever became a saint by means of
his own determined will. No saint was ever untainted by sin. Grace
infers the necessity. Retribution infers the necessity. Divine
redemption infers the necessity. Did Christ die for all or only those
who needed it?
Total depravity is everywhere inferred in both the general and the
special revelation of God. "The whole of creation groans and
suffers."
Loren
>
> >I quoted Augustine to show you that even the
> >fathers disagreed with you, not that they are authoratative in every
> >instance.
>
> But that IS a dishonest use of the quote. And such habitual dishonesty is NOT an
> example of the God-ward inclination you claim to have. Besides: I showed that
> you did not understand what Augustine was really saying, as is usual when you
> quote Augustine.
>
> >There is only one unquestioned authority given to man, sola
> >scriptura.
>
> But you are NOT relying on this authority when you claim "total depravity".
You pushed these two things too far. I'm sure you will either reply
with a bare negative or claim some twisting of the original intent.
For Augustine surely does not side with you in this final denial. In
Enchiridion 30 he writes:
For it was in the evil use of his free will that man destroyed himself
and his will at the same time. For as a man who kills himself is still
alive when he kills himself, but having killed himself is then no
longer alive and cannot resuscitate himself after he has destroyed his
own life so also sin which arises from the action of the free will
turns out to be victor over the will and the free will is destroyed.
"By whom a man is overcome, to this one he then is bound as slave."
This is clearly the judgment of the apostle Peter. And since it is
true, I ask you what kind of liberty can one have who is bound as a
slave except the liberty that loves to sin? He serves freely who
freely does the will of his master. Accordingly he who is slave to sin
is free to sin. But thereafter_he_will_not_be_free_ to_do_right unless
he is delivered from the bondage of sin and begins to be the servant
of righteousness. [as Paul argues in Rom 6:18-20, 23] This, then, is
true liberty: the joy that comes in doing what is right. At the same
time, it is also devoted service in obedience to righteous precept.
But how would a man, bound and sold, get back his liberty to do good,
unless he could regain it from Him whose voice saith, "If the Son
shall make you free, then you will be free indeed"? f49 But before
this process begins in man, could anyone glory in his good works as if
they were acts of his free will, when he is not yet free to act
rightly? He could do this only if, puffed up in proud vanity, he were
merely boasting. This attitude is what the apostle was reproving when
he
said, "By grace you have been saved by faith."
And elsewhere he writes that man cannot deliver himself. The
inclination or distinquishing characteristic of fallen man is his self
motion toward self pleasure. Freedom to sin is affirmed while the
freedom to holiness is denied.
Shedd adds,
"Therefore Augustine and Calvin deny freedom to the sinner, as they
often do, they do not deny his self-motion and voluntariness in sin,
but his ability to the contrary, or his power to reverse and change
his self-motion."
selah!
Matthew Johnson
>Matthew Johnson <matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:<6ZTUc.21366$Kf4....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
>
>
[snip]
>> >That is because He did not self determine an inclination other than to
>> >please God.
>>
>> You miss the point. Of course He didn't do this. But you only
>> considered half of what I said. Where's the other half?
>> What state would _you_ be in after going without food for a week?
>> How would that differ from the drunkard's? Until you answer this,
>> you cannot understand what Christ accomplished for our salvation in
>> the desert -- or in the Garden of Gethsemane.
>>
>I understood your point.
You haven't shown any evidence of this yet.
> Christ's will was as indifferent to sin as
>the drunkard's will was to holiness.
This would be difficult, since the drunkard's will is NOT 'indifferent to
holiness'. Why, the drunk in Novgorod I mentioned did much out of his
inclination to holiness. He even did what I doubt you have ever achieved.
>Volitions are indifferent in and
>of themselves because they only proceed out of the inclination.
'Volitions'? And what difference are you imagining between 'wills' and
'volitions'? You keep using 'volition' as if it meant 'will' or 'wish', and then
wonder why I don't believe you know what you are talking about.
>Christ's inclination was solely God oriented. Because it was such, He
>free will choices were indifferent to the end because the end is
>already determined by the inclination.
Somehow, just the thought of attributing 'indifference' to Christ should have
been enough to warn you you have got very lost down quite a wrong road.
>A holy inclination inclines only to please God.
This is an example of why I had to criticize your use of the word 'inclination'.
For now you are using 'inclination' in a different sense.
>No volition ever operates contrary to its inclination.
How many times have you repeated this without backing it up? Even in this one
post?
>In that Christ only operated from a holy inclination, in
>that narrow understanding, no, He could not have willfully sinned.
"Willfuly sinned" You make it sound like you are leaving open the possibility
that He sinned unwillfully.
>However, as it was with Adam, the real question is whether or not He
>could self-determine a rebellious inclination.
No, that is not "the real question". On the contrary: your question does not
even make sense.
>A fallen inclination can and does only produce fallen volitions.
And again: with some choices for the sense of 'inclination', this makes no
sense, and for the others, it is simply wrong: the gnomic will _often_ acts
contrary to the 'inclination'.
>A holy (regenerated) inclination can and does only produce righteous,
> God honoring volitions.
Which means that you do not have a 'holy' or 'regenerated' inclination. Now
_that_ I find easy to believe;)
>But because the believer is at once, both sinner and saint
>(justified), he has two inclinations out of which the volitions
>operate.
No. In the only sense for 'inclination', in which "the end is determined by the
inclination", no person can have more than one 'inclination'.
That is why I say again: you are speaking gibberish.
>You seem to see contradiction where there is none.
No, it is really there.
>As the drunkard
>has only the orientation to gratify self, so Christ's only orientation
>was to do the will of the Father.
And why are you switching from 'inclination' to 'orientation'? Is this some
sleight of hand meant to hide your fallacies? It sure looks like it.
>Unregenerate man is depraved
>because he has only the single inclination. No volitions to the
>contrary are achievable because there is no secondary, holy
>inclination from which to proceed.
In other words, schizophrenia is normal for your spirituality. Nice going,
Loren.
>> >By bringing up this account, you illustrate that Christ
>> >stood at the very place that Adam did when he could either remain true
>> >in his orientation toward God or he could follow after his wife (self
>> >orientation.) Christ, tested in all points, did not fall from the
>> >holy inclination.
>>
>> The _very_ place? Do you then believe that Adam too, had the same
>> union without
>> confusion of the human and divine natures? If not, then HOW can this be "the
>> very place"?
>>
>Because I believe the kenosis to be to such an extent that
>consciously, after His incarnation, He was also derivative as man was
>so created. In one sense, true, there cannot be equality. However,
>on the conscious level, I do indeed see an identical re-enactment,
>only Jesus never inwardly self-determined to go His own way.
>Remember, the woman was deceived, but not Adam. Adam's change in
>orientation was self-determined.
There are _so_ many problems with this, I don't know where to begin! First of
all, whether or not he was 'derivative' (whatever that might mean) has NOTHING
to do with the "extent of kenosis". You are confusing oranges and apples.
Secondly, as I have already pointed out, the distinction you assume between
'conscious level' and any other level, is NOT biblical. Third, it is not a
'change in orientation' that is 'self-determined', it is the _person_ who is
'self-determined'. And Adam was self-determined both before and after the Fall.
>> > Christ's
>> >was always and only moved spontaneously to the will of the Father as
>> >the supreme end.
>>
>> And why do you think it was 'spontaneously' moved? Are you
>> using 'spontaneously' as an antonym for 'deliberately'? But when
>> fallen man acts 'spontaneously', he does something VERY
>> different from what Christ did.
>>
>No.
'No'? And you complain about _my_ one word answers?
> You can't jump that far in the analysis.
You jumped both further and more recklessly with your prating about 'derivative'
etc. just above. And now you complain that I 'jump'?
> Fallen man acts
>"spontaneously" in accord with his fallen inclination.
NO. We are rational creatures, after all. What you have just described is
correct only for _irrational_ creatures. In rational creatures, every choice is
preceded by wish, will, deliberation, counsel and judgement (however cursory and
inadequate the last three may be).
> It's just that that spontaneity is predetermined by the inclination.
> The drunk is
>free to chose whether to drink and pleasure self or not to drink and
>pleasure self for a 1000 other selfish reasons. But the orientation
>never changes.
I guess it wouldn't, for a person who is convinced he is an irrational creature,
in whom wish results immediately in impulse, without any intervening judgement
and deliberation.
>It is wholly and solely selfish even if the outward
>exhibition may seem to have "godly" or "otherly" attributes. The
>fact remains, the volition cannot act contrary to the "bent" or
>inclination.
So you keep repeating. But you keep repeating it with no grounds. The gnomic
will _often_ acts contrary to the natural inclination. That _is_ the origin of
sin.
>> Also, Christ's WHAT? Will? Or inclination?
>>
>>How can you have the gall to complain about my not 'discussing' when you leave
>> such a crucial assertion so sloppily constructed?
>>
>Not writing exhaustively and "sloppily constructed" are not one and
>the same.
That's true. Sloppily constructed is worse.
Why, you have even missed the point of my complaint, Loren. Not too surprising,
since you have a sharp eye only for other people's faults, like the man carrying
sacks in the Phaedrus fable. The point you so carelesslly missed, Loren, is that
your "writing exhaustively" is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS, when it contains such
sloppily constructed wording!
>> >John 8:42 ... I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent
>> >Me.
>>
>> What theologically biased translation is THIS? There is NOTHING in the Greek
>>text corresponding to 'initiative' here! On what basis do you insert words into
>> the text? The text only has "AP' EMAYTOY".
>>
>NASB
>TDNT, Vol 3, pp. 55-56.
>>
>> >John 15:10 "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love;
>> >just as I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love.
>>
>> And you are not doing this,
>>
>Stick to the point of the discussion, will you?
It was _you_ who brought up the topic of John 15:10, not me. So as usually, you
have no right to complain, since you the first offender. And you are even the
more frequent and egregious offender!
>> when you accuse RCs of exalting the intellect in
>>their theology, even to the point of exempting the mind from the damage of the
>> Fall.
>>
>Aquinas is the source.
So you keep saying. But I already showed you wher later RCs refute you. You had
no answer but to repeat your unsupportable claim.
>Even CS Lewis expounded this based upon
>Aquinas. So I'm hardly being novel to reveal this.
So your error is not novel. But it is still error. And your accusation is still
groundless.
>> >"Abiding" is nothing short of operating out of the regenerated
>> >inclination to please God, for the Christian.
>>
>>And again: you are not doing this when you accuse RCs of exalting the intellect
>> in their theology, even to the point of exempting the mind from the damage of
>> the Fall.
>>
>Again, why can't you discuss the point being made instead of throwing
>up all these road blocks?
It is you, not I, who is "throwing up road blocks" by insisting on false
dichotomies and groundlessly accusing the Rcs of exempting the mind from the
fall etc. based on Aquinas quotes you yourself do not understand.
>Is it that you have no answer therefore you
>are reduced to such a response?
I am not the one with no answer. It is you who have yet to answer the crucial
questions, e.g., what "two wills" in the Garden, which sense of 'inclination'
you mean in the various cases, etc.
But of course, you will refuse to answer, because if you did answer, the fraud
on which your entire theology is based would become all too clear.
>> > For Christ it was
>> >nothing short of delighting to do the will of the Father who sent Him.
>> > "Not my will, but Thine."
>>
>> You say this as if I was supposed to bask in its pious sound, and refuse to
>>inquire further. But I will not fall into that trap. Instead, I will ask, as I
>> have asked before: which of Christ's two wills (one proper to each nature) do
>>you think He is referring to here as "my will"? I don't remember you answering
>> this.
>>
>It should be recognized if, as you say you do, you understood the
>dynamic which I have been advocating.
Gibberish and nonsense is always harder to understand. That's why you should
stop resorting to it, Loren;)
>That you would ask this
>question tells me you do not understand otherwise you would have known
>the answer which I would give you. And if you reply with the notion
>"I was only testing you", then I will reciprocate your own rules.
>First you tell me what my answer is according to the
>self-determination/inclination/volition dynamic which you continue to
>declare comprehending.
That's an awfully convoluted excuse for not answering.
>There are only two possibilities as to why you ask the question above.
Nonsense.
>Either you are testing me, in which case prove yourself by stating my
>position, or you don't, as you say, understand the dynamic involved.
You misunderstand what kind of 'test' you are being subjected to. Besides: you
failed the test _I_ subjected you to long ago;)
>>>> Then again, just the fact that you still stoop so low as to call them 'bums'
>> >> also shows you learned nothing.
>> >>
>> >If you had worked with them, you would know that it is their term.
>>
>> No, it is not. Somehow, I find it easier to believe that _you_ think
>> it is their
>> term because you just didn't listen when they used other terms to refer to
>> themselves. But I have heard them protest loudly when this term is used. And
>> they have the right to protest.
>>
>Their protest is that only they are allowed to use the term, not that
>the term isn't the correct one. Again, if you had worked with them,
>then you would understand this dynamic as well.
Ah, yes, the old "unquestionable superior knowledge" fallacy! No, Loren, you are
full of it. It is simply NOT TRUE that 'bum' is the term they themselves
consider correct. If there are any who think this, they are a small and
unrepresentative minority. It is NOT analogous to the 'N' word.
Again, you miss the point. Is this obtuseness deliberate, Loren? The point is
that it is easier to believe you grossly misunderstood the drunks you claimed to
'help' than it is to believe your fantastic and grossly judgemental explanation
of their psychology.
>> >But that you judge me only reveals openly your own thought processes.
>>
>> Ah, if only you could be so observant of your _own_ thought processes!
>>
>This is a denial?
Who said it had to be a denial? That is _your_ prejudice, not mine.
[snip]
>>But there are _so_ many different ways to see even _this_ dichotomy. >>'Mediate'
>> in which sense? And if we are going to follow the RCS in allowing multiple
>> definitions of grace, why not allow one to work mediately, and another
>> immediately?
>>
>You can confuse anything.
Well, really, you do it much better;)
> I don't mean you personally, I mean anyone.
But that is neither here nor there.
> But the dichotomy is real.
No, it is not. If it were, you would have been able to reduce it to a statement
of the following form: 'If A is in U then either "A is B" or "A is not B". But
you have never done this. I know the reason why you have never done it. It is
because it is IMPOSSIBLE. So instead, you confuse 'in' and 'for' as you did
below!
>Sure there are complications (formal),
>but that doesn't deny the basic tenet. When concerning justification,
>there are only two ways to view it. It is either "for us" (alien to
>us) or it is "in us" (admixture).
No. 'for' and 'in' are NOT opposites. But they have to be for it to be a
'dichotomy'. Besides: how could 'for us' be alien to us??
>Regardless, you again fail to disclose or to discuss. Why do you hide
>behind your veil?
Who is doing the hiding here? It is you who hide your ignorance behind your
pompous words, saying things like "it matters not" instead of "it doesn't
matter", or 'volition' when you mean 'will' or 'wish'. It is you who hide by
using pretentious sounding words you do NOT even understand, such as
'dichotomy'.
>> >The sinner does not, because
>> >he cannot, choose or resolve to incline himself to God.
>>
>> No, he can, and he must. If he fails to do so, he remains
>> outside in the cold.
>> That IS part of the nature of repentance.
>>
>Repentance cannot take place until man is given a new inclination to
>do so.
Uh oh. Here you go with your equivocation again...
>The will cannot act contrary to the inclination
Nonsense. You make God the cause of sin when you claim this, since you also
claim the man cannot change the inclination himself.
>and "there is
>none who seeks [inclines] for God." You may reject this analysis but
>you do so without any debate, only negation.
That's not true. I did debate it. It was you who refused the debate by refusing
to answer the question (in various forms of ): which -sense- of 'inclination'?
And it is you who refuse to debate by hiding your _real_ reasoning behind
specious claims of following "sola scriptura" even as you insist on using
non-biblical language to make less biblical claims about theology.
>> >Rather, God the Spirit immediately inclines him "to will and to do."
>>
>>You are quoting Paul out of context: he was not talking about the >>unregenerate
>> sinner when he wrote that.
>>
>That might be true but the principle still remains true.
Finally, an admission that this might be true! What _took_ you so long, Loren? I
first pointed this out to you s-o-o-o long ago! Now that you have finally got
this far, I actually have a glimmer of hope that in another six months, you will
realize that the "principle" does NOT "still remain true".
>Man cannot,
>even after regeneration, do "the good that I wish [incline to do]."
>apart from/"according to the Spirit."
But now you have changed the topic. Before you were talking about what we can do
w/o the Spirit, but now about what we can do _with_ the Spirit.
[snip]
>You object but, sigh, again you provide no argumentation.
Just as you provide no argumentation for your fantastic claim that "The Reformed
and biblical view is that after the fall, man produced no righteous works
because his
inclination, his desires out of which all his volitions flow, is hopelessly and
only other oriented."
Why, you didn't even word your own theology right! You must have meant "oriented
to self", not "other oriented". Such careless wording, Loren, is yet another
reason you sound so foolish when you complain about _others_ "not discussing"
things.
Besides: the reason I objected, was that you made a dishonest appeal for
credibility, when it was _you_ who failed to provide any supporting reasoning of
the _very_ point in contention!
So _of course_ I object. I have every right to. And you have no right to
complain about _my_ "providing no argumentation", since my objection was the
_direct_ result of _your_ failure to provide it.
>Rom. 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to
>boast about; but not before God.
>Rom. 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? " And Abraham believed God,
>and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."
>
>If there was no assent, then how could Abraham have believed?
Who said there was no assent? What _are_ you talking about, Loren? Is this just
a particularly crude red herring?
>Faith is always rooted in knowledge, perceived or real.
No. Heb 11:1. You should know better than this, Loren.
>Heb. 6:4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and
>have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the
>Holy Spirit,
Notice that the word 'faith' is not even in that passage. So if it is about
'faith' at all, it might not even be in the same sense of the word _you_ insist
on.
>"Enlightenment" must first take place.
>
>John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you,
>unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
That is a reference to Baptism.
>The order is specific. First one must be born/regenerated.
>"Enlightenment" cannot occur until after regeneration. And as in
>physical birth, so in spiritual rebirth. It is the parent who is the
>effectual cause -not the child.
But the parent is NOT the "effectual cause". So your analogy is quite irrelevant
and misleading. See what knots you get yourself tied up in by insisting on using
a Scholastic causality you yourself do not understand?
>Therefore justification is of a necessity, extra nos.
The 'necessity' would follow form the "effectual cause", but you already know
what I think of that. But the 'extra nos' would STILL not follow!
>It is entirely of grace and entirely a work of
>God -outside of man.
You love repeating this so much you don't even see that you have offered no
evidence for it.
>> >In the case of
>> >Adam's apostasy, he determined himself to evil without any immediate
>> >operation of God.
>>
>>'Determination' to evil is not in Scripture, either. That is Reform eisegesis.
>>
>Ever see anything in the scriptures formally demonstrating the
>existence of God? Why? Because it is everywhere assumed, even as the
>depravity of man is, even as endless punishment is.
No, that is not the reason. You are merely assuming your conclusion in your
'proof'. I have already expalined to you why the "scriptural proof" you gave me
is unconvincing.
>It was a "self" determination, ex niliho.
No.
[snip]
>Presumption put forth as a truth.
You should be used to that by now, Loren, since you have been doing it yourself
for so long. Why do you complain when others allegedly do to you what you do to
them so much more brazenly?
>>Can you really believe that you are acting out of a "God-ward inclination"
>>>>when
>> you post red herrings? I can't.
>>
>A conclusion based upon a false presumption. A house built on sand.
Nothing 'false' about it. If there were, you would have shown the relevance of
what I called 'red herrings'. But you have yet to even try.
>I quoted Augustine because you hold no one in authority beyond thefathers.
False.
> In effect, you stagnate the revelation of God.
Even more false.
>You believe
>in only de-evolution within the Church, all the while having an
>eschatology which teaches otherwise. The Truth is consistent to
>itself.
And not at ALL consistent to[sic] your prating.
>> > I only care what God declares.
>>
>>No, I don't believe this either. If you _did_ care what God declares, you
>>>>would
>> never have called yourself a "sola fide man". For the expression "sola fide"
>> NEVER occurds in Scripture.
>>
>Neither does the word, "Trinity." So what? Both principles are clear
>enough for those who would but rely upon the Spirit instead of the
>tradition of men.
So says the man who blatantly relies on the tradition of men when he bleats
"total depravity" and "sola fide"!
>> The closest it gets is "ex fide tantum", but only
>> where it is immediately preceded by NON (James 2:24).
>>
>Now who is confusing the context?
Not me;)
>James was what, talking about the
>dynamics of justification or the display or results of true
>justification? I believe it was the later.
Your "I believe" proves nothing. Except, perhaps, about you. But you would whine
"ad hominem" if I said what it proves about you;)
Besides: this claim that he had to be talking about either one or the other
exclusively is a false dichotomy.
>His argument operates on
>a different objective than that of Paul in Romans.
You miss the point. "Sola fide" is NON-BIBLICAL, as the James citation shows.
>Rom. 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to
>boast about; but not before God.
>How could Paul have made it any plainer?
You say that as if Paul _said_ 'sola fide'. But he did not. Not in Rom 4:2, nor
elsewhere.
>> >There is only one unquestioned authority given to man, sola
>> >scriptura.
>>
>> But you are NOT relying on this authority when you claim "total depravity".
>>
>Everywhere implied.
So _you_ say. But I say "nowhere implied".
>Why was man removed from the garden?
That has nothing to do with it.
>If he
>wasn't totally depraved, then what harm would it have done if he had
>eaten of the tree of life?
What harm? What does _that_ have to do with "total depravity"? Do you really
believe that only "total depravity" can explain this? What a crock!
>Why a Divine Redeemer if the effects of
>the fall where not total?
Because the effects do not have to be 'total' (in your sense) to be pervasive
enough that a divine Redeemer is needed.
[snip]
>Total depravity is everywhere inferred in both the general and the
>special revelation of God. "The whole of creation groans and
>suffers."
No. You are merely repeating your claim without proof AGAIN.
Not ONE of the passages you quote implies 'total'.
Ross Bogue
>Regeneration is thus a lifelong
>process. He derides certain anabaptists, who think that you repent
>right before being baptized, and that's it:
Typical.
Perhaps not typical of Calvin, but typical of the rest of us. When
we do not fully understand a thing, we often create some caricature
of it and criticize that instead.
Yes it's true that Menno Simons (among other Anabaptists) put a much
stronger emphasis on the initial repentance, and that he had little
interest in anything that smacked of predestination. But even he
would have agreed with you that the process has only begun by the
time the pilgrim is baptized, that it's really a life-long process.
I suspect that, had people been more willing to talk together, they
would have found that their differences were less substantial than
they made them out to be.
Ross
--
Dr. Ross Bogue
Physics Department
Illinois State University
Matthew Johnson
>
>Matthew Johnson <matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:<3ZTUc.21362$Kf4....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
>>
>>
>> why are you so surprised by this accusation, when it
>>was you who raised such an accusation against RC and Orthodox first, implicitly?
>
>
>To quote you, "_you_" are different in that you make it personal.
You fool no one by denying that you made it personal long before this.
> My
>argument has always been against the theological system, always
>differentiating the individual from the ideology.
So you say. But the direct violation of the command against judging you
displayed before us all by calling those women 'prostitutes' shows how wrong you
are.
And yes, this is a VERY obvious direct violation. Why, this is even the classic
examples the Fathers give again and again in their writings on not judging: even
if you see a woman skimpily dressed waiting in the wrong part of town, we are
NOT allowed to assume she is a prostitute. But you not only transgressed, you
transgressed blatantly and publicly.
And as if that wasn't bad enough, you were obviously also trying to dispose the
reader to see a "guilt by association", seeing the guilt of the Catholics more
clearly by believing that it was prostitutes who were typical worshippers making
their offerings.
That is so low, Loren, there can be no defense.
[snip]
Loren
>
> Let's look at Calvin's descriptions of regeneration in the Institutes.
> See 3.11. In it he summarizes the relationship among faith,
> justification and sanctification.
>
> identifies it with repentance, because repentance is the process of
> reorienting our lives towards God. Regeneration is thus a lifelong
> process.
>
>
> Calvin used the term as I do, but that in later Calvinist
> theology it was narrowed. I tend to be guided by Calvin more than
> later Calvinists. Later Calvinism tended to emphasize predestination
> more than Calvin did. I think that influenced this change. Packer implies
> that it was associated with a mistranslation of /epistrepho/.
***********
Thank you for your reply. It encouraged me to pull out all the
resources I have here at home to look at the history of development in
the determination of the term. Berknof has a general historical
over-view of "Use of the Term 'Regeneration' in Theology." (p465) As
you have posted for us, he refers to Calvin, specifically 3.3.9. At
the bottom of p.468 he states, "It is true that some Reformed authors
have occasionally used the term 'regeneration' as including even
sanctification, but that was in the days when the ordo solutis was not
as fully developed as it is today."
Of the dozen or so reference works I read tonight, all of them
basically agree with Berknof's final definition:
"In the strictest sense of the word we may say: Rengeration is that
act of God by whic the principle of the new life is implanted in man,
and the governing disposition of the soul is made holy....
continuing he adds, "But in order to include the idea of the new
birth as well as that of the 'begetting again', it will be necessary
to complement the definition with the following words, 'and the first
holy exercise of this new disposition is secured."
In other works, most make direct reference to regeneration being a
specific act of the Holy Spirit. In lengthy works, it is generally
discussed under anthropology but specifically under pneumatology.
Chafer wrote of greater length on the topic than anyone else, all
total, probably 30+ pages. But he distills regeneration to be the
"acquisiton of the nature of God" with 5 particular facts ..." (1) a
new life has been thereby begotten which is eternal; (2) that life is
the divine nature; (3) the believer is begotten by the Spirit; (4) God
the Father becomes his legitmate Father; (5) therefore, all believers
are heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ. On the human side
regeneration is conditioned siply on faith (John 1:12-13; Gal 3:26).
With Berknof's historical synopsis and an explaination of it's early
Latin misconceptions which only led to further misunderstanding and
numerous positions within the RCC itself, to the early Reformation
teaching to a more developed understanding in later Reformed theology,
and Chafer's lengthy discussion, esp. under pneumentology, I do not
agree with your final position with Calvin. Reading what I have
tonight, certainly a presumption, but I feel that if alive today,
Calvin would adjust his conclusions to be more in line with later
Calvinist. But that is just my .02.
It is a very difficult proposition to move away from and out of a long
held position. I think it is easier in area's such as eschatology
than it is in area's more impending and pervasive. To change position
on this point of discussion effects many other beliefs to one degree
or another. But personally, I think the later position is the most
theologically sound and more easily in line with the NT revelation.
The OT picture is very cloudy at best concerning regeneration.
This was good for me to re-read what Calvin and others have said
concerning this term.
hed...@geneva.rutgers.edu
>"In the strictest sense of the word we may say: Rengeration is that
>act of God by which the principle of the new life is implanted in man,
>and the governing disposition of the soul is made holy....
The question is whether we're arguing over words or reality. I'm not
sure yet. There is no question that salvation has aspects that happen
once and aspects that happen over the course of the Christian life.
If it's just a question of which part of this "regeneration" refers to
then we're talking about word definition, not substance.
Being "born again" is based on God's decision to graft us into Christ.
As you say, this includes becoming God's children. One can argue that
this occurs before the creation of the world, and in another sense at
the time Christ died and was resurrected for us. On our side, there
is "faith," which for Calvin is the way we receive being engrafted
into Christ.
Many people experience this as happening at a specific time in their
lives, as they become conscious of God's action and start responding
explicitly. Some who grown up in the Church may not have that
experience. However if you're referring to the actual time that we
enter the Kingdom of God, I believe that is the time when God chooses
us, which is before we are even born.
To the extent that it is God's choice to receive us, I'm willing to
speak of it as being done once. To the extent that we talk about our
response, and how it is worked out in our lives, it is progressive.
As long as we agree that God not only accepts us at once, but also
begins to renew his image in us as we grown in Christ, I'm not sure we
disagree. The term "regeneration" seems appropriate for the latter
element because it describes our slow growth into the kind of people
God would have us be. God's initial acceptance of us establishes a
relationship with him that is the basis of our regeneration, but only
starts the change.
The term "regeneration" is sometimes identified with the Biblical
"born again," as "regeneration" can reasonably mean "rebirth".
For Calvin's take on this see his exposition of John 3,
http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol34/htm/ix.htm He makes
it clear that being born again means being renewed by the Holy
Spirit. In discussing the phrase "to see the kingdom of God" he notes
that the kingdom of God "means the spiritual life, which is begun by
faith in this world, and gradually increases every day according to
the continued progress of faith." Coming into the kingdom can probably
be described as one time (although I think it happens before we are
even born), but being in it is an ongoing experience.
However Calvin sees regeneration more broadly.
... the end of regeneration is to form us anew in the image of
God. Accordingly, he elsewhere shows that the new man is renewed after
the image of him that created him (Col. 3:19). To this corresponds
another passage, "Put ye on the new man, who after God is created"
(Eph. 4:24). [1.15.4]
A mind is not born again merely by having some portion of it
reformed. It must be totally renewed." [2.3.1, p 188]
I actually have at least questions about some of the language
you quote:
>"In the strictest sense of the word we may say: Rengeration is that
>act of God by which the principle of the new life is implanted in man,
>and the governing disposition of the soul is made holy....
I'm not entirely happy talking about a "principle of new life" being
implanted. That's sounds more like "infused grace" than the Reformed
idea. For Calvin there's no "principle." Rather, there is God himself,
the Holy Spirit, present in us.
I'm also uncomfortable with the idea that the "governing disposition"
is made holy as a one-time operation. Yes, we become God's children,
a status that is fully ours even though we aren't finished yet. Yet
we all know only too well that our "governing disposition" is by
no means fully holy in this life, unless the term refers to the
Holy Spirit active in us.
Loren
> lsenders writes
>
> However if you're referring to the actual time that we
> enter the Kingdom of God, I believe that is the time when God chooses
> us, which is before we are even born.
>
position say to the significance of history? Yes, we certainly have
scriptural support that we were chosen before the universe was ever
brought forth. However, I believe that history is of such a
significance, that even theologically speaking, regeneration does not
actually occur until the calling of the Father, the proceeding of the
Holy Spirit, and the *regeneration* of the spirit of the individual
elect. It does not necessitate the permanent indwelling of the
Spirit (otherwise Abraham in the OT dispensation could not have been
declared to be just). Rather, regeneration specifically involves the
recreation of the holy inclination out of which faith and good works
then proceed.
>
> To the extent that it is God's choice to receive us, I'm willing to
> speak of it as being done once. To the extent that we talk about our
> response, and how it is worked out in our lives, it is progressive.
>
However, I think technically from a theological stand point,
regeneration specifically and only refers to the recreation and
animation of the "new man." Justification follows immediately after
wards for the elect sinner in then capacitated and excited to
fiduciatory faith. Sanctification then proceeds from there. However,
I disagree with the any teaching which would led one to think that
sanctification and regeneration are interchangeable words. If
conversion is an effect of regeneration, then it is also true that
sanctification itself is.
>
> As long as we agree that God not only accepts us at once, but also
> begins to renew his image in us as we grown in Christ, I'm not sure we
> disagree.
>
it fundamentally incorect to confuse regeneration as being progressive
as sanctification is. Regeneration, like physical birth, is a once
and for all affair.
>
>The term "regeneration" seems appropriate for the latter
> element because it describes our slow growth into the kind of people
> God would have us be.
>
contention. Strictly speaking, theologically, it is incorrect to
confuse the cause with the effect. Regeneration is the cause to which
one must continually, and hopefully, progressively, rely upon in order
to produce sanctifying effects.
>
>God's initial acceptance of us establishes a
> relationship with him that is the basis of our regeneration, but only
> starts the change.
>
let alone sanctification. The basis for regeneration is the finished
work of Christ alone. Regeneration is an act of God interceeding into
history to regenerate the inclination of the will in the elect. That
inclination is the new capacity placed within the elect from which the
individual may "seek after God." Prior to that moment, there was no
capacity available to elect except to operate out of the "old man" or
the "flesh," i.e. the fallen inclination which is only and always self
centered. This is what causes the non-elect to say, "I'm a good man.
I do good deeds." It is always "I" orientation. Regeneration
reproduces in man the ability to orient himself to God.
>
> The term "regeneration" is sometimes identified with the Biblical
> "born again," as "regeneration" can reasonably mean "rebirth".
> For Calvin's take on this see his exposition of John 3,
> http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol34/htm/ix.htm He makes
> it clear that being born again means being renewed by the Holy
> Spirit. In discussing the phrase "to see the kingdom of God" he notes
> that the kingdom of God "means the spiritual life, which is begun by
> faith in this world, and gradually increases every day according to
> the continued progress of faith." Coming into the kingdom can probably
> be described as one time (although I think it happens before we are
> even born), but being in it is an ongoing experience.
>
> However Calvin sees regeneration more broadly.
>
Though it isn't a great illustration, I suppose it will do for
argument sake- If you had a debilitating handicap, say some neural
connection in the spinal cord, which incapacited your below the waist,
and then I, as the surgeon, went in and fused the separated connection
such that you suddenly had motor skills, it could be stated that at
the moment the connection was made, you were regenerated. However,
having the new capacity still requires you to put forth the effort to
revitalize muscles that have atrophy. The rehabilitation specialist
works with you over a long period of time to get you to walk.
In this illustration, the efficient cause is the surgeon. The formal
cause was the X-ray which reveal the separation and the blue print as
to what needed to be done. The material cause was the actual nerve
relay itself and the instrumental cause was the surgeons knife and
skill.
Now to bring this all back to discussion, God is the Surgeon. The
formal cause is the eternal decree where in eternity past the elect
was chosen. The material cause is the person, himself. The
instrumental cause is the movement of God to regenerate the original
inclination which Adam had (though this cannot be identical).
> ... the end of regeneration is to form us anew in the image of
> God.
>
Actually, that is the end of being sanctified. Notice that
sanctification is not listed in Rom 8:30. That is because
sanctification is progressive whereas Paul was specifically speaking
of those things which were deemed already accomplished in the believer
after the moment of conversion. But the cause of every "conformity"
is the Spiritual empowerment of the already regenerated inclination.
The inclination is that determination which is solely desirous of
pleasing God. Though Matthew contends otherwise, Rom 7:15ff
illustrates this new capacity/inclination being the source of having
desires to please God, but by itself it cannot enable man to produce
good works. It is only when the believer relies upon the power of the
Spirit that he is then empowered to achieve his new desires. But
those desires are a product of the rebirth of the holy inclination.
>
> Accordingly, he elsewhere shows that the new man is renewed after
> the image of him that created him (Col. 3:19). To this corresponds
> another passage, "Put ye on the new man, who after God is created"
> (Eph. 4:24). [1.15.4]
>
> A mind is not born again merely by having some portion of it
> reformed. It must be totally renewed." [2.3.1, p 188]
>
Are you equating "mind" with consciousness or self-consciousness?
>
> I actually have at least questions about some of the language
> you quote:
>
> >"In the strictest sense of the word we may say: Rengeration is that
> >act of God by which the principle of the new life is implanted in man,
> >and the governing disposition of the soul is made holy....
>
> I'm not entirely happy talking about a "principle of new life" being
> implanted. That's sounds more like "infused grace" than the Reformed
> idea. For Calvin there's no "principle." Rather, there is God himself,
> the Holy Spirit, present in us.
>
Well, I certain understand the confusion just as you certainly
understand that I hold no portion to infusion. I would encourage you
to read Shedd at length. That you hold to the Reform position, I
cannot imagine your library not having a copy of his Dogmatic
Theology, esp. the 3rd ed which I believe sets the standard for all
translation theological works.
>
> I'm also uncomfortable with the idea that the "governing disposition"
> is made holy as a one-time operation. Yes, we become God's children,
> a status that is fully ours even though we aren't finished yet.
>
Again I would encourage you to read Shedd. There is so much involved
in this issue including "personality" and "personhood", the marriage
of the immaterial and material, even the operation within the Godhead
itself. Holiness is the "governing disposition" of God. It is an
attribute and not an "essence" yet it is almost incorrect to file it
with the other attributes because it regulates them. It is the only
triadically declared attribute which indicates that it is not only
attributable to each of the Members, but also its absolute perfection.
In fact, I have seen holiness defined as that capacity within God to
be perfect to Himself.
>
> Yet
> we all know only too well that our "governing disposition" is by
> no means fully holy in this life,
>
No, that's not true. Now hear me out. Prior to the regeneration, we
had no cognizance of our sinfulness (which is not equal to saying we
didn't have guilt feelings). Prior to regeneration, Paul's experience
described in Rom 7:15ff was an imposibility. Being regenerated, we
are always either grieving the Spirit or yielding to the Spirit.
There is no third avenue in the life of the believer. When we grieve
the Spirit, however, the believer is cognizant to the fact because he
now operates under the holy inclination. It is part of his psyche.
It is a "predisposition." The conviction of the Spirit is through the
new inclination. Prior to regeneration, we never had this reference.
I believe Paul's intent in the statement, "There is none who seeks for
God" is in effect stating "There is none who is so inclined to please
God." The fruition of having only a fallen inclination is "There is
no fear of God."
>
>unless the term refers to the
> Holy Spirit active in us.
>
No it does not. The new holy inclination now predisposes us to always
fear God. The regenerated soul offers immediate resistance and
refusal to temptation instead of dalliance. Perhaps we are not always
cognizant of this fact, but it is an internal reality. We are always
oriented toward God, being "in Christ", even though we do not always
"will to do the will" of God still retaining the old inclination
Sanctification is nothing less than more and more volitionally
operating out of the regenerated inclination to please God.
This can have no parallel in the RC "infusion" of justifying grace for
justification is not the issue. According to that paradigm, simply by
committing a mortal sin, we can kill our standing of justification.
It is also different in that the RC doctrine concerning such speaks of
the "habatus." The regeneration is not to be thought of merely
habiting, but in fact "being." It does not increase or decrease
because it simply "is."
Is. 7:16 "For before the boy will know to refuse evil and choose good"
Here the fact is stated that Immanuel's will was not be created such
as to be indifferent to choosing *either* good or evil. Rather,
Immanuel was to be wholly inclined to good. Shedd here writes, "In
brief, the diference between the Augustinian and the Pelagian doctrine
of freedom is this: The Pelagian asserts that the will as uninclined
and indifferent chooses. He postulates a viliton antecedent to any
inclination. The Augustinian asserts that the will is never
uninclined or indifferent. There is no volition prior to inclination.
The former places freedom in an act of the will prior to incling;
the latter places it in the very act itself of inclining."
Again, if you really want to pursue this, I would encourage you to
read the 3rd chapter , "Human Will" under the anthropology heading, as
found in Shedd.
I will say this, along with a studied understanding of "grace", this
doctrine concerning the inclination of the will has been the most
enlightening and revolutionary aspect in my Christian walk in the last
20 yrs. Because it affects so much, it is constantly before me in my
thinking and my walk. It completely defines the necessity and
operation of the doctrine of total depravity.
Mark Adkins
>
> Well Mark, you are clearly a figment of *my* imagination. I must be
> dreaming.
>
> So even if you "think" you exist, that is just me imagining you thinking
> that you exist.
>
> I am even imagining that you imagine that you are the only real thing and
> that we are figments of your imagination. I also imagine that you are a
> complete loon.
>
> Amazing what my mind can come up with after a long day and drinking too much
> cola.
I see a wide variety of behaviors and responses from my figments.
Here I observe the "hard-headed skeptical materialist" archetype,
ironically reflecting my own previous position and with sarcastic
humor not entirely dissimilar from my own in that period of my
life. I suppose I could say that I made you in my own image. :)
In a sleeping dream (which, incidentally, I do not assert
this is -- I merely draw a parallel), one is in an altered,
impaired state of consciousness in which incoherent events seem
coherent and unreal beings seem real; furthermore, the appearance
of great complexity (beyond the intellectual or generative
abilities of the dreaming mind) is not good evidence that the
dream is real, since the mind *is* impaired and thus is poorly
situated to judge its own abilities, potentialities, and past
experiences (memory also being impaired).
Of course, going back to the point you made earlier -- in which
you asserted that your observations prove that sentient beings
will to evil, let me for the sake of argument accept your
premise (that you are sentient). Now, do you suppose it might
be possible that what you have observed, in the way of evil
behavior, has been illusory in the sense of being the behavior
of non-sentients? My *experience* as a sentient being tells
me that sentient beings do NOT will to evil. My *observations*
are a different matter entirely: things are not always what
they appear to be, and these kinds of observations are not
*evidence* except within some framework of interpretation.
My understanding is that Christians accept various possibilities
of illusion: these range from the diabolic (Satan or other demons
appearing in various guises to deceive or tempt), to the mundane
(sleeping dreams). I have had many dreams which seemed to be
compelling and which caused me a great deal of mental and
emotional turmoil -- until I woke up and saw them for what
they were: nonsensical and unreal. As for Christian dogma
(which I do not share, being an atheist), I suppose that
the world might be regarded as a kind of test. Personally
I consider the very notion of a deity (a being that wants
to be worshipped, or demands to be at threat of hellfire)
quite absurd, ignoble, and, figuratively speaking, satanic.
A test of that sort would, of course, be quite cruel, but
perhaps not quite as illogical as the notion of a benevolent
and omnipotent creator permitting such horrific events as are
depicted in the news and the history books (e.g., babies
being raped and tortured, etc.). Then there are the
biblical passages which, according to some, say that Satan
is the ruler of this temporal world. I seem to recall a
movie with Al Pacino that accepted that premise as a plot
device.
Whose premises are inconsistent here?
Loren
>
> >Volitions are indifferent in and
> >of themselves because they only proceed out of the inclination.
>
> 'Volitions'? And what difference are you imagining between 'wills' and
> 'volitions'? You keep using 'volition' as if it meant 'will' or 'wish', and then
> wonder why I don't believe you know what you are talking about.
>
technically I was not speaking correctly. The common or everyday
useage however intermixes the terms but you are correct in correcting
me at this level of discussion.
Either way, the important point is the distinction between the will's
inclination and the will's volition. However, seeing as how being
technically correct is so emphasized, then I would point out to you
that volition is not to be understood as being prior to inclination if
you are inclined to follow Augustinian reasoning as opposed to
Pelegianism. Are you technically then alligning yourself with
Pelegianism?
Charles Hedrick
Shedd's work. I did however find his chapter on regeneration online:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/Shedd_Regeneration.html
This doesn't encourage me to buy the whole work. He has just recreated the
Catholic doctrine using Protestant terminology.
The whole /via moderna/ scheme is there: the unregenerated does what
he can, including praying for God's grace; God will "commonly" bestow
regenerating grace when the unregenerate prays for it. In other
expositions of the doctrine, we see a clear parallel to the famous
"created habits of grace."
See http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/files/RBCalvinisticInfusion.htm
for an interesting case that later Calvinism not only taught infused
grace, but use the terminology.
The whole point of Luther and Calvin is that grace is not something
that is infused in our soul (whether one uses the word infused or not).
It is the determination of God to save us. Nothing on our side stands
between this determination of God and our justification. Jusification
isn't even dependent upon faith. Faith is how we receive God's action
in grafting us into Christ. Our faith, justification and sanctification
result from our union with Christ, and the personal presence of the
Holy Spirit, not from anything in ourselves, although they result in
a transformation of ourselves.
Matthew Johnson
>>
>> >Volitions are indifferent in and
>> >of themselves because they only proceed out of the inclination.
>>
>> 'Volitions'? And what difference are you imagining between 'wills' and
>>'volitions'? You keep using 'volition' as if it meant 'will' or 'wish', and then
>> wonder why I don't believe you know what you are talking about.
>>
That would be a refreshing change;)
> Volition is the same as choice.
NO! Volition is the most general term, covering not only the will itself, but
many things closely associated with it, such as 'choice'.
> Yes,
>technically I was not speaking correctly.
Which itself is not necessarily bad. But you are the one who is so defensive
about the need to use technical language -- and then you use it incorrectly!
> The common or everyday
>useage however intermixes the terms but you are correct in correcting
>me at this level of discussion.
>
>Either way, the important point is the distinction between the will's
>inclination and the will's volition.
But because of the way you use these terms, I still cannot be sure what you mean
by "will's inclination" or by "will's volition"! After all, the way _I_ use the
terms, it makes no sense whatsoever to say "will's volition". And "will's
inclination" could have any one of three different meanings.
>However, seeing as how being
>technically correct is so emphasized, then I would point out to you
>that volition is not to be understood as being prior to inclination if
>you are inclined to follow Augustinian reasoning as opposed to
>Pelegianism. Are you technically then alligning yourself with
>Pelegianism?
Of course not. It is St. Maximus I follow, not Pelagius. But it is a mistake for
you to claim to follow Augustine here. After all, first of all, Augustine was
VERY clear about distinguishing between 'will' and 'choice'. That is why I have
repeated his terminology SO often in these NGs, pointing out that "free will" is
inaccurate, "free CHOICE of the will" is more accurate, being a faithful and
literal tranlsation of Augustine's "liberum voluntatis arbitrio".
But even Augustine's terminology is not accurate enough; for what you are trying
to do, you really need to learn the terminology of St. John of Damascus and St.
Maximus the Confessor, who analyzed the will in brilliant detail. That is why I
keep giving you the links. So here is St. Maximus's primary work on the will
again: http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/greek/maximos/prosmarinon1.html#prologos.
I know it is a lot of work for someone who knows only NT Greek, but using
Perseus, it is doable. And it is worth the effort, since Pros Marinon is SO hard
to translate.
Matthew Johnson
>Matthew Johnson <matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:<6ZTUc.21366$Kf4....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
>>
>> >I quoted Augustine to show you that even the
>> >fathers disagreed with you, not that they are authoratative in every
>> >instance.
>>
>>But that IS a dishonest use of the quote. And such habitual dishonesty is NOT an
>> example of the God-ward inclination you claim to have. Besides: I showed that
>> you did not understand what Augustine was really saying, as is usual when you
>> quote Augustine.
>>
>> >There is only one unquestioned authority given to man, sola
>> >scriptura.
>>
>> But you are NOT relying on this authority when you claim "total depravity".
>
>You pushed these two things too far.
No, I have not. You are claiming to have this God-ward inclination, yet
blatantly showing by your actions that the inclination is either completely
absent, or completely powerless, making a mockery of your own false spirituality
and the theology it depends on.
Now I know that sounds harsh, Loren, but really: you have no right to expect
anything less as long as you continue your propaganda campaign, claiming that
Augustine and Paul taught as you do, when you can't even get straight what
Calvin taught, much less what Augustine and Paul taught.
Besides: you introduced this Enchiridion 30 quote trying to prove your theology
of the "new inclination". But the word 'inclination' does not even _occur_ here,
nor is that the topic of the Enchiridion passage. So it is YOU who "pushed these
two things too far".
>I'm sure you will either reply
>with a bare negative or claim some twisting of the original intent.
Well, you would be less sure of this false conclusion if you had actually _read_
my response that _last_ time you cited Enchiridion 30! You would also be less
sure if you paid attention to what the _same_ Augustine says elsewhere about the
necessary role of free will _even in the unregenerate_ in "Ennarationes in
Psalmos", where on Psa 103:2 he says:
He heals you, but _you_ must WISH TO BE HEALED. He heals
every ill man, but not him who refuses the healing.
So even if we do take Augustine literally when he describes the sinner as having
"killed himself" in Enchiridion 30, then he is contradicting himself in the
Ennarationes. So why should we take what he says in Enchiridion 30, and ignore
what he says in Ennarationes?
>For Augustine surely does not side with you in this final denial.
That is not so clear. It would, after all seem that he supports "total
depravity" (in your sense) if you _only_ read selected passages. But since
Augustine so often chose what to write based on what the current issue was
(rather than trying to write, exhaustive, systematic theology), this is NOT the
correct way to read him. That is why I keep reminding you of the need to read
the Retractions, and of the need to read SYNTOPICALLY.
But if you _do_ read him the correct way, then you see that Augustine does not
support "total depravity" unequivocally. Rather, what he supports is our
inability to pull ourselves out of slavery to sin, once we have fallen into it.
But this is not the same at all. And once _pulled_ out, we have to be really
_out_ of it. So Augustine _certainly_ does not support your pessimistic
assessment of our spiritual state even _after_ being pulled out!
Nor, for that matter, does he deny (as you do) that the unregenerate can
_desire_ to be freed from the sin in which they lie prostrate. There is nothing
in the Enchiridion 30 quote to support you here, either. Again, see Ennarationes
in Psalmos.
> In Enchiridion 30 he writes:
>
>For it was in the evil use of his free will that man destroyed himself
>and his will at the same time.
But your translator is guilty of "over-translating" here. That is, he has made a
questionable choice of the many possible choices of translation for 'perdidit'
here, slanting the words of Augustine to have a very different flavor than the
original Latin really has.
And indeed, it looks like the translator did this to make Augustine's support
for Reform theology look better than it really is. For 'perdidit' here could
also have been translated 'lost, ruined', NOT 'destroyed'. And this would
actually match the rest of the paragraph better! See below.
> For as a man who kills himself is still
>alive when he kills himself, but having killed himself is then no
>longer alive and cannot resuscitate himself after he has destroyed his
>own life so also sin which arises from the action of the free will
>turns out to be victor over the will and the free will is destroyed.
But this translation is simply WRONG. It does not say "and the free will is
destroyed" here, but "amissum est et liberum arbitrium" i.e., "and the free will
is lost/sent away".
>"By whom a man is overcome, to this one he then is bound as slave."
>This is clearly the judgment of the apostle Peter. And since it is
>true, I ask you what kind of liberty can one have who is bound as a
>slave except the liberty that loves to sin? He serves freely who
>freely does the will of his master. Accordingly he who is slave to sin
>is free to sin.
This too is inaccurate, and slanted to a theology Augustine did not support. It
should read "I ask you what kind of 'liberty' can the bound servant have except
when he delights in sin?"
So you see, the saint is NOT claiming that the "bound servant" is forced to
delight in sin; rather, that the only 'freedom' he has, if he has any at all, is
to delight in sin. But he can still rebel against the usurper who bound him,
wishing to serve his real master instead.
>But thereafter_he_will_not_be_free_ to_do_right unless
>he is delivered from the bondage of sin and begins to be the servant
>of righteousness. [as Paul argues in Rom 6:18-20, 23]
But don't forget; as in Rom 6, the new servant of righteousness is still free to
regress, which is _why_ we are given the warning of Rom 6:16:
Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to any one as obedient
slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin,
which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to
righteousness? (Rom 6:16 RSVA)
This is stated as a general condition, there is NOTHING restricting it to
before/after. And another Apostle is even _more_ strident in warning us against
this, saying:
Forsaking the right way they have gone astray; they have
followed the way of Balaam, the son of Be'or, who loved
gain from wrongdoing, (2Pe 2:15 RSVA)
He says the "forsake the right way" because he is talking about people who
_were_ Christians but fell away.
>This, then, is
>true liberty: the joy that comes in doing what is right. At the same
>time, it is also devoted service in obedience to righteous precept.
The punctuation of this translation is horrible! The reader is fooled into
thinking he has the whole answer to the question, "what is true liberty?", and
only _then_ corrected; and with _such_ an important correction!
For that matter, why didn't he translate 'propter'? What devious trick is this?
The saint _really_ wrote:
Ipsa est vera libertas propter recte facti laetitiam, simul et pia
servitus propter praecepti obedientiam.
Or:
THIS is true liberty for the sake of the joy in doing what is right, at
the same time, pious servitude for the obedience of the command/teaching.
For by Augustine's time 'pia' already had moved in meaning much closer to modern
'pious' than to the ancient 'dutiful'. Your translator was still too much
influenced by the military dictatorship of Caesar's Latin;)
>But how would a man, bound and sold, get back his liberty to do good,
>unless he could regain it from Him whose voice saith, "If the Son
>shall make you free, then you will be free indeed"? f49 But before
>this process begins in man, could anyone glory in his good works as if
>they were acts of his free will, when he is not yet free to act
>rightly? He could do this only if, puffed up in proud vanity, he were
>merely boasting. This attitude is what the apostle was reproving when
>he
>said, "By grace you have been saved by faith."
>
>And elsewhere he writes that man cannot deliver himself. The
>inclination or distinquishing characteristic of fallen man is his self
>motion toward self pleasure.
But Augustine recognizes that the "distinguishing characteristic" is not _only_
in fallen men. So how can you justify calling it a " distinquishing[sic]
characteristic"? Augustine did not call it this. Not in your Enchiridion quote,
not anywhere else. Nor did he call it 'inclination'. Would that you would
realize why he never did this!
>Freedom to sin is affirmed while the freedom to holiness is denied.
Except that unlike you, Augustine severely qualified that 'freedom to sin'
saying, "He serves freely who freely does the will of his master." But only by
proudly exalting your own opinion above the truth, puffing yourself up even
worse than those Augustine criticized in Ench. 30, can you deny that there are
those who do NOT "serve sin freely", but only unwillingly, and these are they
who call on God to liberate them, just as in the old Advent hymn, "Veni, veni,
Immanuel".
>Shedd adds,
>
>"Therefore Augustine and Calvin deny freedom to the sinner, as they
>often do, they do not deny his self-motion and voluntariness in sin,
>but his ability to the contrary, or his power to reverse and change
>his self-motion."
Guess what : Shedd is not correct in his interpretation of Augustine either. But
he is not as far off as you: for Shedd only denies his _power_ to change the
self-motion, not his _will_ to change it (unless he denies that in another
passage). But you deny both. And it is for denying both that I have to criticize
you.
Really, Loren, I do not understand your blind and fanatical attachment to Shedd.
Even your fellow Calvinist, Charles Hedrick, is now telling you that Shedd is
not a very faithful representation of Calvinism. So if you won't listen to me,
you now have Charles to listen to; shed your bonds attaching you to Shedd.
>selah!
What desire to brag of your ignorance leads you to misuse 'selah' in this way?
Is it related, I wonder, to the ignorance that leads you to misuse Augustine
citations? It really amazes me, Loren, that you still show no sign of realizing
how silly this sounds, ending your posts with 'selah'!
Loren
> But even Augustine's terminology is not accurate enough; for what you are trying
> to do, you really need to learn the terminology of St. John of Damascus and St.
> Maximus the Confessor, who analyzed the will in brilliant detail. That is why I
> keep giving you the links. So here is St. Maximus's primary work on the will
> again: http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/greek/maximos/prosmarinon1.html#prologos.
>
fyi, Shedd often refers to Chrysostom, but not to JD in his discussion
on the will. He notes JD, "perhaps the greatest EO theologian of all
time," under Trinitarian discussions, esp circumincession & his
Christology, "incliding the view that Christ's human nature subsists
enhypostatically in the divine person of the Logos." His work on
"free will" is noted but not commented on (as I remember).
Loren
> Sorry, I've never been all that interested in later Calvinists. I don't have
> Shedd's work. I did however find his chapter on regeneration online:
>
> http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/Shedd_Regeneration.html
>
> This doesn't encourage me to buy the whole work. He has just recreated the
> Catholic doctrine using Protestant terminology.
>
his entire theology, you could certainly walk away with the same
conclusions which you have mentioned.
>
> The whole /via moderna/ scheme is there: the unregenerated does what
> he can, including praying for God's grace; God will "commonly" bestow
> regenerating grace when the unregenerate prays for it. In other
> expositions of the doctrine, we see a clear parallel to the famous
> "created habits of grace."
>
primary error is that you are confusing regeneration and
justification. Shedd does not counter either Luther or Calvin,
quoting each at length. If I had the time, I would quote Shedd
himself at length concerning conversion. He defends both sola gratia
and sola fide. He defends synthetic righteousness as opposed to the
RC methodology of analytic righteousness. He maintains that Christ's
righteousness is exta nos and that it alone is basis for the believers
justification. His discussion on total depravity removes any
confusion concerning any identification with infused grace.
Shedd's contention via the inclination of the will, is that the
unregenerated is unable to pray for God's grace. The difference is
illustrated between the prayer of the Pharisee and that of the
publican. The Pharisee "prayed to himself" while it was the publican
"who went home justified." There was and is not progression in
justification.
>
>
> See http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/files/RBCalvinisticInfusion.htm
> for an interesting case that later Calvinism not only taught infused
> grace, but use the terminology.
>
> The whole point of Luther and Calvin is that grace is not something
> that is infused in our soul (whether one uses the word infused or not).
>
This is not in the scope of Shedd's discussion of regeneration.
Regeneration stands apart from justification as does the cause from
its effect. The early Reformers also distinquished faith from works
is a similar manner. Works is the effect cause by a faith which
includes enlightenment (knowledge), ascent (identification) and
fiducia. Shedd agrees the sola fide is nothing more than sola
Christos.
Regeneration is specific in the recreation of the original holy
inclination. Shedd is very clear on this point in DT.
>
> It is the determination of God to save us. Nothing on our side stands
> between this determination of God and our justification.
>
i.e. extra nos
>
> Jusification isn't even dependent upon faith.
>
Isn't this exactly what I've been purporting to be Shedd's analysis?
Justificiation, according to Shedd, is as sure effect of regeneration
as is good works is a sure effect of true faith. The effect cannot
reach back and act upon the cause. Salvation is by faith alone,
(comma) but that faith is never alone for good works will *always*
follow it even as justification will always follow regeneration.
>
> Faith is how we receive God's action
> in grafting us into Christ. Our faith, justification and sanctification
> result from our union with Christ, and the personal presence of the
> Holy Spirit, not from anything in ourselves, although they result in
> a transformation of ourselves.
>
and as the physical child has plays absolutely not determinative role
in his own birth, let alone causation of conception, so the child of
God is "born again" by the determinative will of his/her heavenly
Father with no part played other than acceptance - the
fiduciatory aspect of faith.
Again, I strongly suggest you read Shedd. Even, for argument sake, if
he was a neo-reformationist, he would be worth your consideration if
for nothing else, as being nearly without equal when it comes to
defending the Westminister Standards.
Dogmatic Theology, 3rd ed. p. 761, "Regeneration."
*********
The term 'regeneration' has been used in a wide and in a restricted
sense. It may signify the whole process of salvation, including the
preparatory work of conviction and the concluding work of
sanctification. Or it may denote only the imparting of spiritual life
in the new birth, excluding the preparatory and concluding processes.
The Romish church regards regeneration as comprehending everything in
transition fro a state of condemnation of earth to a state of
salvation in heaven and confounds justifiation with sanctification.
The Lutheran doctrine, stated in the apology for the Augsburg
Confession and in the Formula of Concord, employs regeneration in the
wide meaning, but distinguishes carefully between justification and
sanctification. In the Reformed church, the term 'regeneration' wasl
also employed in the wide signification. Like the Lutheran, while
carefully distinguishing between justification and sanctification, the
Reformed theologian brought under the term 'regeneration' everyting
that pertains to the development as well as to the origination of the
new spiritual life. Regeneration thus included not only the new
birth, but all that issues from it. It compriese the converting acts
of faith and repentance and also the whole struggle with indwelling
sin in progressive sanctification. THus Calivin (3.3.9) remarks, "I
apprehend repentance (poenitentiam) to be regeneration
(regenerationem), the end of which is the restoration of the divine
image within us. In this regeneration, we are restored by the grace
of Christ to the righteousness of God from which we fell in Adam. And
this restoration is not accomplished in a single moment or day or
year; but by continual, even tardy, advances the Lord destroys the
carnal corruptions of his elect." Here, regeneration is employed to
denote not merely the instantaneous act of imparting life to the
spiritually dead, but also the processes of conversion and
sanctification that result from it.. . .But this wide use of the term
'regeneration' led to confusion of ideas and views. . . . We shall
adopt this distinction between regeneration and conversion.
Regeneration, accordingly, is an act; conversion is an activity or a
process. Regeneration is the origination of life; conversion is the
evolution and manifestation of life. Regeneration is wholly an act of
God; conversion is wholly an activity of man. Regeneration is a
cause; conversion is an effect. Regeneration is instantaneous;
conversion is continuous."
Following this introduction, he then lists eight (8) "Characteristics
of Regeneration" (pp. 764-773) In brief:
1) Regeneration is solely the work of God.
2) Regenerationas the creative and live-giving act of God produces an
effect on the human understanding.
3) Regenerationwith respect to the human will is 'renewal."
4) Man is passive in Regeneration.
5) Man cannot cooperate in Regeneration.
6) Regeneration is a work of God in the human soul that is below
consciousness.
7) Regeneration is not effected by theuse of means, in the strict
signification of the term, 'means.'
8) Regeneration is the cause of conversion.
In his next division, "Man's Agency in Regeneration" (p 773-775) Shedd
writes:
'The term'preparative' as used by the Augustinian and Calvinist is
very different from its use by the Semipelagian and Arminian. The
former means but it conviction of sin, guilt and helplessness. The
latter employs it in the sense of a preparative disposition or a
favoring state of heart. This is referred to in WCF 9.3: "A natural
man is not able to convert himself or prepare himself thereto." The
tenth of the 39 Articles also excludes the Semipelagian "preparatives"
to regeneration: "We have no power to do good works acceptable to God,
without the grace of God by Christ preventing us that we may have a
goodwill and working with us when we have that good will." In
Semipelagian us, a 'preparative' denotes some faint desires and
beginnings of holiness in the natural man upon which the HS, accofing
to the synergistic thereoy of regeneration joins. Having this sens of
the term in view, Witsius (Covenants 3.6.27) says; "Let none think it
absurd that we now speak of means of regernation, when but a little
before (3.6.10, 12) we rejected all preparatives for it." Owen, on
the other hand, denies "means" and asserts "preparatives" of
regeneration. Yet Owen and Witsius agree in doctrine. In the
Calvinistic system, a "preparative" to regeneration or a "means" of it
is anyting that demonstrates man's total lack of holy desire and his
need of regeneration. It is consequently not a part of regeneration,
but something prior and antecedent to it. There is a work performed i
the soul previous to the instantaneous act of regeneration, as there
is awork performed in the body previous to the instantaneous act of
death. A man loses physical life in an instant, but he has been some
time in coming to this instant. So man gains spritual life in an
instant, though he may have had days and monthes of a foregoing
experience of conviction and sense of spritual death. This is the
ordingary divine method, except in the case of infants.. . . To
recapitualte, then, we say that the sinner's agency in respect to
regeneration is in the antecedent work of conviction, not in the act
of regeneration itself."
*******
I hope that clarifies where Shedd stands. In no way can he stand
accused as confusing "infused righteousness." To do so simply reveals
a naivette to his whole system of theology.
Loren
> In article <d0xWc.1244$9P.1048@trnddc04>, Loren says...
>
>
> my response that _last_ time you cited Enchiridion 30! You would also be less
> sure if you paid attention to what the _same_ Augustine says elsewhere about the
> necessary role of free will _even in the unregenerate_ in "Ennarationes in
> Psalmos", where on Psa 103:2 he says:
>
> He heals you, but _you_ must WISH TO BE HEALED. He heals
> every ill man, but not him who refuses the healing.
>
> So even if we do take Augustine literally when he describes the sinner as having
> "killed himself" in Enchiridion 30, then he is contradicting himself in the
> Ennarationes. So why should we take what he says in Enchiridion 30, and ignore
> what he says in Ennarationes?
>
yes, "you must wish to be healed," but there is a chronology and one
is the cause and the other is the certain effect. Freedom is not
destroyed. You are misinterpreting Augustines intent. This is
exactly parallel to James' "faith without works". This IS the basis
for the Reformation.
Your view is equal to the RC view in that you view that man must (and
can) add to his salvation to such an extent that he becomes simul
justus et justus. This is nothing less than analytical justification.
It is 2+2=4. One side of the equation reveals absolutely nothing new
about the other side of the equation. We could put this in a verbal
form, something like stating, "all bachelors are men." This is an
analytic statement. This is what the Reformers rejected as applying
to justification.
The Reformed view is that justification is synthetic, not that it is
false, nor that man must add something to it, but rather that it is
accomplished by something outside of us, namely, the righteousness of
Christ -ALONE! This would be illustrated by taking the above
statement and making it to read, "the bachelor is bald." This is not
an analytic statement even as "He heals you but you must wish to be
healed" is not an analytical statement.
>
> >For Augustine surely does not side with you in this final denial.
>
> That is not so clear. It would, after all seem that he supports "total
> depravity" (in your sense) if you _only_ read selected passages.
>
But he does. For he too realizes that man cannot in and of himself
willfully seek to please God in the first instance. He also denies
the 2+2=4 equation wherein he necessitates the first movement outside
of man's will -to heal. "To heal" is nothing short of regeneration.
>
> But since
> Augustine so often chose what to write based on what the current issue was
> (rather than trying to write, exhaustive, systematic theology), this is NOT the
> correct way to read him. That is why I keep reminding you of the need to read
> the Retractions, and of the need to read SYNTOPICALLY.
>
> But if you _do_ read him the correct way, then you see that Augustine does not
> support "total depravity" unequivocally.
>
To a degree, I will agree with you here. However, he and Jerome
countered (I don't remember if it was in letters or a formal
statement) the view of depravity held by Origen wherein he argued
"concerning the necessary mutability of the will in created beings"
leading him to infer that evil was "ever germinating afresh" (Neander
1.656) In that they wrote against Origen at this point infers that to
some degree they both held to a quasi total depravity doctrine. Did
they develope it? I don't think they did. I think it was inferred
and a given.
>
> Rather, what he supports is our
> inability to pull ourselves out of slavery to sin, once we have fallen into it.
> But this is not the same at all. And once _pulled_ out, we have to be really
> _out_ of it. So Augustine _certainly_ does not support your pessimistic
> assessment of our spiritual state even _after_ being pulled out!
>
And thus Luther further qualifies the situation with his "simul justus
et peccator."
Also, the very fact that a Redeemer was required certainly infers the
inability of man's will. That the Redeemer was predetermine "before
the foundation of the world" forces it still. Christ didn't die just
for those who had fallen into sin and not for those who had not. I
find this no where advocated.
It has to be somewhere admitted that there is no logical intermediate
between Calvinism and Arminianism. It is an impossibility to say that
men are both totally and yet partially depraved. It is an
impossibility to say that election is both non-conditional and
condition. It is an impossibility to say that regeneration is both
irresistible and alien while maintaining that it is resistible and
when accepted, commingled. It is an impossibility to say that
security is both certain and uncertain. There simply can be no
modification of the Reformers stance in view of the Arminian, nor the
Arminian stance in view of the Reformers.
Shedd holds out the ideal that "both systems hold in common the saving
doctrines of the gospel" in that "a sinner may be regenerated and
sanctified under either", but I feel that very basic objects of faith
and trust are at variance and either one is right or it is wrong, not
both. For the Reformed stance, it is sola fide. The Arminian stance
will not tollerate the totality of the Reformed position concerning
extra nos. Though Arminianism is analytic in a formal sense, in a
pragmatic sense, it is synthetic, adding the will of man to the will
of God as a means to finally achieving justification. The Reformed
view is that justification is immediate.
>
> Nor, for that matter, does he deny (as you do) that the unregenerate can
> _desire_ to be freed from the sin in which they lie prostrate.
>
That is a very different thing than seeking to be God pleasing.
Wishing to be freed can be just another self-oriented desire. Though
they will not desire to be in Heaven, certainly the unregenerate will
"desire to be freed" from the accountability of their sin. But the
object is always self serving, not God pleasing.
>
> There is nothing
> in the Enchiridion 30 quote to support you here, either. Again, see Ennarationes
> in Psalmos.
>
> > In Enchiridion 30 he writes:
> >
> >For it was in the evil use of his free will that man destroyed himself
> >and his will at the same time.
>
> But your translator is guilty of "over-translating" here. That is, he has made a
> questionable choice of the many possible choices of translation for 'perdidit'
> here, slanting the words of Augustine to have a very different flavor than the
> original Latin really has.
>
If I remember right, this is from the website you referred me to. If
not then it was from the "Master Christian Library" CD. Either way,
you're quibbling. If it was the later then here is the info as given
by the editor:
"The three leaders of the now historic Ango-Catholic movement of
Oxford,
Drs. PUSEY, NEWMAN, AND KEBLE, began, in 1837, the publication of "A
Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, anterior to the
Division of
the East and West. Translated by Members of the English Church,"
Oxford
(John Henry Parker) and London (J.G.F. & J. Rivington). It is
dedicated to
"William Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England." The
editors were aided by a number of able classical and ecclesiastical
scholars.
Dr. Pusey, the chief editor and proprietor, and Dr. Keble died in the
communion of the church of their fathers to which they were loyally
attached; Dr. Newman alone remains, though no more an Anglican but a
Cardinal of the Church of Rome. His connection with the enterprise
ceased
with his secession (1845).
The Oxford Library was undertaken not so much for an historical, as
for an
apologetic and dogmatic purpose. It was to furnish authentic proof for
the
supposed or real agreement of the Anglo-Catholic school with the faith
and
practice of the ancient church before the Greek schism."
It is obvious that your presumption
>
> And indeed, it looks like the translator did this to make Augustine's support
> for Reform theology look better than it really is.
>
is not only wrong, but was written to the purpose of Catholic
advocacy.
>
> For 'perdidit' here could
> also have been translated 'lost, ruined', NOT 'destroyed'. And this would
> actually match the rest of the paragraph better! See below.
>
Quibbling. The illustration is making a point.
>
> > For as a man who kills himself is still
> >alive when he kills himself, but having killed himself is then no
> >longer alive and cannot resuscitate himself after he has destroyed his
> >own life so also sin which arises from the action of the free will
> >turns out to be victor over the will and the free will is destroyed.
>
> But this translation is simply WRONG. It does not say "and the free will is
> destroyed" here, but "amissum est et liberum arbitrium" i.e., "and the free will
> is lost/sent away".
>
more quibbling. And here this "Oxford" translation was to advocate
the NON-Reformed position. Imagine that.
>
> >"By whom a man is overcome, to this one he then is bound as slave."
> >This is clearly the judgment of the apostle Peter. And since it is
> >true, I ask you what kind of liberty can one have who is bound as a
> >slave except the liberty that loves to sin? He serves freely who
> >freely does the will of his master. Accordingly he who is slave to sin
> >is free to sin.
>
> This too is inaccurate, and slanted to a theology Augustine did not support. It
> should read "I ask you what kind of 'liberty' can the bound servant have except
> when he delights in sin?"
>
> So you see, the saint is NOT claiming that the "bound servant" is forced to
> delight in sin; rather, that the only 'freedom' he has, if he has any at all, is
> to delight in sin. But he can still rebel against the usurper who bound him,
> wishing to serve his real master instead.
>
No he can't! Yes he can! No he can't! Yes he can! No he can't!
Yes he can! No he can't! Yes he can! No he can't! Yes he can! No
he can't! Yes he can! No he can't! Yes he can!
This gets us no where.
>
> >But thereafter_he_will_not_be_free_ to_do_right unless
> >he is delivered from the bondage of sin and begins to be the servant
> >of righteousness. [as Paul argues in Rom 6:18-20, 23]
>
> But don't forget; as in Rom 6, the new servant of righteousness is still free to
> regress, which is _why_ we are given the warning of Rom 6:16:
>
> Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to any one as obedient
> slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin,
> which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to
> righteousness? (Rom 6:16 RSVA)
>
Of course. silul justus et peccator. Duh!
>
> This is stated as a general condition, there is NOTHING restricting it to
> before/after.
>
Oh Yes There Is. There is the entire flow of the Pauline arguement
from condemnation of the heathen, to condemnation of Jew, to
condemnation universal, to justification then sanctification then
glorification then the necessary debate of election. There is a
logical progression and Rom 6 comes after Rom 5 wherein Paul announces
that the believer has been immediately declared righteous and
therefore God is now at peace with him. Rom 6 and 7 speak to the
justified Christian.
>
>And another Apostle is even _more_ strident in warning us against
> this, saying:
>
> Forsaking the right way they have gone astray; they have
> followed the way of Balaam, the son of Be'or, who loved
> gain from wrongdoing, (2Pe 2:15 RSVA)
>
Will address this in a separate post. You are too simplistic in your
interpretation of this passage.
Loren
> >In article <d0xWc.1244$9P.1048@trnddc04>, Loren says...
>
> this, saying:
>
> Forsaking the right way they have gone astray; they have
> followed the way of Balaam, the son of Be'or, who loved
> gain from wrongdoing, (2Pe 2:15 RSVA)
>
> He says the "forsake the right way" because he is talking about people who
> _were_ Christians but fell away.
>
have accused me being incapable of.
You did not quote the entire context of the argument being put forth.
>From the NASB:
2 Pet. 2:18 For speaking out arrogant {words} of vanity they entice by
fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones
who live in error,
2 Pet. 2:19 promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of
corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved.
2 Pet. 2:20 For if after they have escaped the defilements of the
world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are
again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become
worse for them than the first.
2 Pet. 2:21 For it would be better for them not to have known the way
of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy
commandment delivered to them.
2 Pet. 2:22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb, " A
dog returns to its own vomit," and, "A sow, after washing, {returns}
to wallowing in the mire."
First, let's distinquish the characters.
"They" of vs. 18, 19 are the false teachers.
"Those" v.18, "them" v.19, "they" v.20 "them" vs 21, are new
converts.
It is the later who are "entangled" and "overcome" in v.20. However,
this does not speak of falling back into condemnation or "losing
salvation" or whatever other title you wish to pin on it. A similar
situation, though not exact, is mentioned by Paul in Rom 11:20.
The key is vs 21 "it would be better for them" being in the imperfect.
That renders the meaning "almost better." Again Paul in Rom 9:3 uses
the imperfect when stating:
Rom. 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, {separated}
from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the
flesh,
Paul could no more unseparate himself from Christ in lieu of his
brethren that it would be "better" for these young believers who have
fallen back to living in the power of the flesh. Need I quote it
again? simul justus et peccator. This is the reality, Matthew.
"The "overcoming" is not complete, total or final. The illustrations
of v 22 speak of the reality that being a regenerated believer
ensnared in sin is worse (in some respects) than being an unbeliever
enslaved in sin. These young converts find themselves EXACTLY where
Paul himself once stood when declaring, "O Wretched man that I am!"
>
> >
> >And elsewhere he writes that man cannot deliver himself. The
> >inclination or distinquishing characteristic of fallen man is his self
> >motion toward self pleasure.
>
> But Augustine recognizes that the "distinguishing characteristic" is not _only_
> in fallen men. So how can you justify calling it a " distinquishing[sic]
> characteristic"?
>
Charles made a similar statement when he writes: "I'm also
uncomfortable with the idea that the "governing disposition" is made
holy as a one-time operation."
I am maintaining that unregenerated man drives a car that only goes
left while the regenerated man drives a car that only goes right. Now
occassionally the regenerated man hits the curb and the car actually
bounces to the left, but the car's inclination or determination is
always oriented to the right. The unregenerated man, when his car
hits the curb and veers right, it never actually inclines toward the
right. In both cases, the inclination is determined and no matter how
hard the drive pulls on the steering wheel in the other direction, it
simply will not incline the other way. The believer sinning are
simply "bumps in the road." His inclination is determined by the
indwelling Spirit who goads him and seals him
Col. 1:22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through
death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and
beyond reproach--
As stated before, the difference between your position and the
Reformed position is that you think of the believer as a sinner who is
striving to become a saint while I believe the biblical position is
that the regenerated are saints who yet sin.
>
>Augustine did not call it this. Not in your Enchiridion quote,
> not anywhere else. Nor did he call it 'inclination'. Would that you would
> realize why he never did this!
>
Whether he "realized" it or not, really is not the determining factor.
I maintain that for him, like David, it was not given to him to
"build the temple" but for those who followed after him.
Trinitarianism was not formalized until the 3-4th C. Justification
was not formalized until the Reformation restored the original meaning
of the doctrine. That an indepth analysis of the operation of the
will didn't come till much later still, doesn't surprise me in the
least. I find it fascinating as to when and why it came to be.
> >Freedom to sin is affirmed while the freedom to holiness is denied.
>
> Except that unlike you, Augustine severely qualified that 'freedom to sin'
> saying, "He serves freely who freely does the will of his master." But only by
> proudly exalting your own opinion above the truth, puffing yourself up even
> worse than those Augustine criticized in Ench. 30, can you deny that there are
> those who do NOT "serve sin freely", but only unwillingly, and these are they
> who call on God to liberate them, just as in the old Advent hymn, "Veni, veni,
> Immanuel".
>
But the admonishment to chose life and not death, speaks of life as
being the elective. Why then is death not to be thought of as being
an elective according your interpretation of what Augustine is
actually stating?
>
> >Shedd adds,
> >
> >"Therefore Augustine and Calvin deny freedom to the sinner, as they
> >often do, they do not deny his self-motion and voluntariness in sin,
> >but his ability to the contrary, or his power to reverse and change
> >his self-motion."
>
> Guess what : Shedd is not correct in his interpretation of Augustine either. But
> he is not as far off as you: for Shedd only denies his _power_ to change the
> self-motion, not his _will_ to change it (unless he denies that in another
> passage). But you deny both. And it is for denying both that I have to criticize
> you.
>
I deny it in that man cannot self appropriate it. The change is alien
to man. Obviously that change is not absolute or there would be no
"converts." But that is not the point. The point is that man's
orientation is such that he has no internal ability to desire, let
alone accomplish, that which is truly pleasing to God -apart from a
selfish orientation.
>
> Really, Loren, I do not understand your blind and fanatical attachment to Shedd.
>
ITS NOT SHEDD! It is the dynamic which he qualifies.
>
> Even your fellow Calvinist, Charles Hedrick, is now telling you that Shedd is
> not a very faithful representation of Calvinism. So if you won't listen to me,
> you now have Charles to listen to; shed your bonds attaching you to Shedd.
>
I replied at length to that notation, more than adequately revealing
that Shedd is in complete harmony with the basic Reformation tenents.
The confusion comes in that Charles confuses the distinction between
regeneration and justification while you confuse the distinction
between justification and sanctification. I'm sure after reading what
I have sent off as a reply, he will agree that Shedd is not of a
"modernist" in the Reformed camp.
>
> >selah!
>
> What desire to brag of your ignorance leads you to misuse 'selah' in this way?
> Is it related, I wonder, to the ignorance that leads you to misuse Augustine
> citations? It really amazes me, Loren, that you still show no sign of realizing
> how silly this sounds, ending your posts with 'selah'!
>
ALL the word means is, "contemplate." or "think about it" with the
inference of the wonder of it all. It wasn't the exclamation of the
braggart, but the sheer wonderment of a sinner standing amazed at the
gracious plan of salvation.
Loren
> Really, Loren, I do not understand your blind and fanatical attachment to Shedd.
>
I am often amazed at how unconscious people are of how much their
words or actions betray their very thought processes. When some one
comes and begins gossiping about some one else to, why should I not
conclude that they do the same thing about me? You speak of "blind
and fanatical attachment". I don't think that way. That is not my
orientation. I don't put any credulity in any one man except for
Christ. I remain true to my sola scriptura. I find area's where I
disagree with Shedd. I find area's where I question Chafer or
Schaeffer or VanTil, or Calvin, or Augustine, etc. But I never
question Paul, or John, etc.
"blind and fanatical attachment" reveals your orientation, not mine.
Ex Praeterito Praesens Prudenter Aqit Ni Futura Actione Deturpit
"From the [examples of] the past the man of the present acts prudently
so as not to imperil the future."
"blind and fanatical attachment" IS a danger. Paul certainly
exhibited this in his fanaticism in favor of the Pharisaical.
Phil. 3:5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the
tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee;
Phil. 3:6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the
righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.
But then he was converted and gave up any doctrine of salvation which
is "pursued . . . as though it were by works."
Matthew Johnson
>
>> But even Augustine's terminology is not accurate enough; for what
>> you are trying to do, you really need to learn the
>> terminology of St. John of Damascus and St. Maximus the Confessor,
>> who analyzed the will in brilliant detail. That is why I
>> keep giving you the links. So here is St. Maximus's primary work on the will
>>again:
>>>>http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/greek/maximos/prosmarinon1.html#prologos.
>>
>fyi, Shedd often refers to Chrysostom, but not to JD in his discussion
>on the will.
Well, discussions on the will would not be the most appropriate place to refer
to Chrysostom, since his comments on the will were too brief and (to modern ears
affected by the heritage of Augustine) too skimpy on the "nature vs. grace"
aspect. But it is an oversight not to refer to JD on any discussion of the will.
>He notes JD, "perhaps the greatest EO theologian of all
>time," under Trinitarian discussions, esp circumincession & his
>Christology, "incliding the view that Christ's human nature subsists
>enhypostatically in the divine person of the Logos." His work on
>"free will" is noted but not commented on (as I remember).
Curiously enough, among the Orthodox, Chrysostom is not considered the greatest
_theologian_ but the greatest _preacher_ and _exegete_ of Paul. The difference
is important. Why, the title 'Theologian' was not even given to this St. John,
but only to St. John the Evangelist, St. Gregory Nazianzen (often called
'Gregory the Theologian' among us) and St. Symeon the New Theologian.
Nor is St. John of Damascus considered "the greatest theologion of all time".
No, he is considered the greatest _synthesizer_ of others teachings. As I have
pointed out before, he gets the closest to writing "systematic theology" among
the Easterns.
So although Shedd may have meant it as the highest compliment, I am afraid that
even calling him "the greatest EO theologian of all time" shows how little he
really understood S. John of Damascus. Perhaps Shedd, like you, overvalues
'system' in theology.
Finally, I have to check: what _was_ your reason for posting a comment about
Shedd's attitude to Chrysostom and St. John of Damascus in a response to a
comment about _another_ EO theologian? You did notice, I hope, that I was not
talking about Chrysostom, but about St. Maximus? It is St. Maximus, not either
of the St. Johns, who analyzed the will in such brilliant detail.
As I said before, I know it is difficult reading for those who know only NT
Greek. But if you skip the prolog and concentrate on only paragraphs "On Will
(peri fysikous qelhmatos)" and "On Wish (peri boulhsews)", you will get a good
idea of why his work is so important.
Remember: it was for writing works like these that even the then Lutheran
scholar, Jaroslav Pelikan, called St. Maximos "the Father of Byzantine
Theology". So shed your overvaluation of Shedd, and learn real theology from
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/greek/maximos/prosmarinon1.html#_Toc475122178
Matthew Johnson
>
>>Really, Loren, I do not understand your blind and fanatical attachment to Shedd.
>>
>words or actions betray their very thought processes. When some one
>comes and begins gossiping about some one else to, why should I not
>conclude that they do the same thing about me? You speak of "blind
>and fanatical attachment". I don't think that way.
Yes, you do. But like most fanatics, you are unaware of your own fanaticism.
>That is not my orientation.
Yes, it is.
>I don't put any credulity in any one man except for
>Christ.
So you love to believe, so you love to keep telling us.
> I remain true to my sola scriptura.
And this _is_ the keystone of your fanaticism. For _your_ 'sola scriptura' is
NOT taught in Scripture, was NEVER taught by the Apostles, and is not even the
same as what the 'Reformers' taught!
>I find area's where I disagree with Shedd.
Here you should find big areas...
>I find area's where I question Chafer or
>Schaeffer or VanTil, or Calvin,
Here too...
> or Augustine, etc.
But here you don't even understand what he really said.
> But I never question Paul, or John, etc.
Yes, you do. You question Paul's clear statements in Phil 2:12-13, and
then hide the questioning under impossible exegesis, all as an excuse
to do as the Apostle Peter warns us NOT to do in 2 Peter 3:16. For by
claiming 'sola fide' and 'sola scriptura', you _have_ twisted Paul's
words to your own destruction.
>"blind and fanatical attachment" reveals your orientation, not mine.
>
>Ex Praeterito Praesens Prudenter Aqit Ni Futura Actione Deturpit
Your typos are bad enough in English, but here, it is really ridiculous. There
is no such word as 'aqit', you should have written 'agit'. Latin is hard enough
to read without such typos:-(
>"From the [examples of] the past the man of the present acts prudently
>so as not to imperil the future."
And this is why you must read Augustine more carefully, and start
paying attention to Sts. John of Damascus and Maximus the Confessor,
too. For you _are_ imperiling your own future with your passionate
attachment to wrong doctrine.
>"blind and fanatical attachment" IS a danger. Paul certainly
>exhibited this in his fanaticism in favor of the Pharisaical.
And you exhibit it in favor of 'sola fide' and 'sola scriptura'.
Matthew Johnson
>Matthew Johnson <matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:<h6cXc.4243$2B4.1004@trnddc06>...
>> >In article <d0xWc.1244$9P.1048@trnddc04>, Loren says...
>>
>>And another Apostle is even _more_ strident in warning us against
>> this, saying:
>>
>> Forsaking the right way they have gone astray; they have
>> followed the way of Balaam, the son of Be'or, who loved
>> gain from wrongdoing, (2Pe 2:15 RSVA)
>>
>> He says the "forsake the right way" because he is talking about people who
>> _were_ Christians but fell away.
>>
>Now we will find out whether you have the ability to be taught as you
>have accused me being incapable of.
No, rather, we will find out how far you are willing to bend the rules of
grammar and even common sense to maintain your twisted eisegesis.
Besides: you should have learned from your previous attempts. Every time you
have tried to correct my understanding based on Greek grammar, it has ended up
badly for you. This time is no exception. So it is you who demonstrates the
inability to be taught. No surprise there, alas.
>You did not quote the entire context of the argument being put forth.
Well, no, I didn't. I didn't need to. Is this the motive for your writing such
tiresomely long posts, you think you need to quote the entire context every
time? Take this post as an example: this practice of yours is NOT helping you.
>>From the NASB:
>
>2 Pet. 2:18 For speaking out arrogant {words} of vanity they entice by
>fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones
>who live in error,
Are you really typing this by hand? Why don't you get an electronic copy and use
cut-and-paste? I really have a hard time believing this error was in your
printed copy of the NASB.
>2 Pet. 2:19 promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of
>corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved.
And yet your eisegesis would have this last comment rendered irrelevant.
>2 Pet. 2:20 For if after they have escaped the defilements of the
>world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are
>again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become
>worse for them than the first.
And what would be worse than condemnation?
>2 Pet. 2:21 For it would be better for them not to have known the way
>of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy
>commandment delivered to them.
>2 Pet. 2:22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb, " A
>dog returns to its own vomit," and, "A sow, after washing, {returns}
>to wallowing in the mire."
>
>First, let's distinquish the characters.
>
>"They" of vs. 18, 19 are the false teachers.
>"Those" v.18, "them" v.19, "they" v.20 "them" vs 21, are new
>converts.
I see you left out who the 'dogs' and 'pigs' are in 2 Pet 2:22. How clever of
you.
But worse yet, already you have resorted to eisegesis. It says not 'new
converts', but 'those who have barely escaped". That might not be just "new
converts". But this is a minor point; it is overshadowed by your much more
glaring eisegesis below.
>It is the later who are "entangled" and "overcome" in v.20. However,
>this does not speak of falling back into condemnation or "losing
>salvation" or whatever other title you wish to pin on it.
But now this is where you give your fanatical instinct to eisegesis full
freedom! Yes, it IS "falling back into condemnation". Why, it is even WORSE than
any "other title you wish to pin on it".
How could you miss this, Loren? It says quite clearly that their current state
is WORSE than before (2 Pet 2:20), yet before, they WERE under condemnation.
Why, your own chosen translation leaves no room for doubt, saying:
the last state has become worse for them than the first. (2 pt 2:20)
But "the first" state was CONDEMNATION. And their "last state" is WORSE.
>A similar situation, though not exact, is mentioned by Paul in Rom 11:20.
This is not even 'similar'; why you bother with such red herrings is a mystery
to me.
> The key is vs 21 "it would be better for them" being in the imperfect.
> That renders the meaning "almost better."
It does no such thing. Not that that would help you, anyway. It would not.
After all, if anything, the force of the imperfect is to say, rather:
it is better for them not to have known the way of righteousness
than for them to turn away ... having known.
IOW, it _weakens_ the conditional force found in many translations of this
verse. That is why this construct is so often called "an unreal conditional".
This is what Moulton [A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol III] described p91,
sec. 3 as:
Begin quote--------------
The "unreal" indicative (impf. for what should be now; aor. for
what should have been) is found in conditional sentences; the
AN which is the characteristic of "unreal" usage may not even
be present. The tenses maintain their proper Aktionsarten.
End quote--------------
What then, does it really mean that HN and not GEGONEN is used here? It means
that they should be better off, not that they should have been (which is what
aorist would mean here).
And on the previous page, he lists 2 Pet 2:21's use of HN as an example of
"imperfect used for the present". He even says "It is not suggested that the
past obligation was not lived up to; it is simply a present obligation expressed
for some reason in the imperfect. The reason may be the same as that which
prompts the English past tense 'ought' instead of present 'owe'; simply because
the obligation logically conceived is anterior to the implied fulfillment".
So your reading of the imperfect HN is just another example of how far you are
willing to soar into flights of groundless fancy to support your bad theology.
> Again Paul in Rom 9:3 uses the imperfect when stating:
>
>Rom. 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, {separated}
>from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the
>flesh,
What ARE you talking about? This is a _completely_ different construction. Here,
the imperfect HUXOMHN is imperfect because it is a 'conative' or 'desiderative'
imperfect. It is not in a conditional construct at all, which makes this example
of the imperfect COMPLETELY UNLIKE 2 Pet 2:21.
Seriously, Loren: there were some posts long ago where you showed better
knowledge of NT Greek than this. Now you are making mistakes a freshman would
not make. What happened?
>Paul could no more unseparate himself from Christ in lieu of his
>brethren that it would be "better" for these young believers who have
>fallen back to living in the power of the flesh. Need I quote it
>again? simul justus et peccator. This is the reality, Matthew.
The reality is that people who claim to be "simul iustus et peccator"
are really just "peccator". How could it be otherwise, when the people who
really _are_ 'iusti' always view themselves as 'peccatores'?
>"The "overcoming" is not complete, total or final. The illustrations
>of v 22 speak of the reality that being a regenerated believer
>ensnared in sin is worse (in some respects) than being an unbeliever
>enslaved in sin.
Ah, I see that trick! You are trying to use that parenthesis to claim that in
respect to his eternal salvation, he is not worse off after all. But this is
ridiculous, especially since there is NO such parenthetical proviso in what
Peter wrote. It is a fancy of the Reform imagination, conjured up to hide the
gaping holes in Reform theology.
>These young converts find themselves EXACTLY where
>Paul himself once stood when declaring, "O Wretched man that I am!"
More wishful thinking inspired by your self-blinding attachment to Reform
eisegesis. No, they will not find themselves there, because 2 Pet 2:21 IS AN
UNREAL CONDITION, they ARE the "dogs that returned to their vomit (2 Pet 2:22)"
>> >And elsewhere he writes that man cannot deliver himself. The
>> >inclination or distinquishing characteristic of fallen man is his self
>> >motion toward self pleasure.
>>
>>But Augustine recognizes that the "distinguishing characteristic" is not _only_
>> in fallen men. So how can you justify calling it a " distinquishing[sic]
>> characteristic"?
>>
>Charles made a similar statement when he writes: "I'm also
>uncomfortable with the idea that the "governing disposition" is made
>holy as a one-time operation."
I noticed that. He was right to say it.
>I am maintaining that unregenerated man drives a car that only goes
>left while the regenerated man drives a car that only goes right.
And I am maintaining that you have no plausibility, because to the outside
observer, it appears you are _still_ driving a car that goes only left.
I also maintain that Augustine had a better solution to the dilemma you are
trying to resolve with this fancy of yours, and his solution involved
understanding the difference between the good "amor sui" implied as a
commandment in Mat 22:39, and the other "amor sui", the "amor sui perversus &
cavendus".
>Now
>occassionally the regenerated man hits the curb and the car actually
>bounces to the left, but the car's inclination or determination is
>always oriented to the right. The unregenerated man, when his car
>hits the curb and veers right, it never actually inclines toward the
>right. In both cases, the inclination is determined and no matter how
>hard the drive pulls on the steering wheel in the other direction, it
>simply will not incline the other way.
But this is not what Scripture actually says. Not anywhere. On the contrary: it
is the possibility of being lost that gives the warning of 2 Pet 2:20 its force.
Besides: holding your belief requires you to ignore the facts of life we can all
see around us, namely, that there are so many Christians who spend more time
"veering to the left" than they do "driving to the right" (remember the thread
on hypocritical Christians?) and there are even atheists, Moslems and pagans who
spend more time obeying the commandments of Mat 25:31-46 than do most
'Christians'. Yet it is for _these_ commandments that the righteous are rewarded
with eternal life!
> The believer sinning are simply "bumps in the road."
So close and yet so far! If only you really understood the Proverb:
for a righteous man falls seven times, and rises again;
but the wicked are overthrown by calamity. (Pro 24:16 RSVA)
Take note now: it says, "a righteous man". It does NOT say "a man who is 'simul
iustus & peccator'"!
>His inclination is determined by the indwelling Spirit who goads
>him and seals him
In other words, we are robots, with no substantial free will of our own. Despite
all the warnings which Augustine shows us (De Gratia & Libero Arbitrio 1.1) are
in Scripture itself NOT to believe this, you choose to believe it.
>Col. 1:22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through
>death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and
>beyond reproach--
There is no promise of "driving always to the right" in this verse. That is more
of your eisegesis.
>As stated before, the difference between your position and the
>Reformed position is that you think of the believer as a sinner who is
>striving to become a saint while I believe the biblical position is
>that the regenerated are saints who yet sin.
And as stated before, what you call 'biblical' is most certainly NOT Biblical at
all.
>>Augustine did not call it this. Not in your Enchiridion quote,
>> not anywhere else. Nor did he call it 'inclination'. Would that you would
>> realize why he never did this!
>>
>Whether he "realized" it or not, really is not the determining factor.
> I maintain that for him, like David, it was not given to him to
>"build the temple" but for those who followed after him.
And I maintain that you have yet to even look in the direction where that
building really took place. Its not a temple you are looking at, especially not
a temple of God.
>Trinitarianism was not formalized until the 3-4th C.
You keep coming back to this example too. Yet you do not understand it either;
for if you did, you would realize that the gross perversion of Christian Ethics
flowing out of your bad theology is an effective _repudation_ of Trinitarianism.
> Justification was not formalized until the Reformation restored
> the original meaning of the doctrine.
But this never happened; what you call 'restoring' was introducing a new
(despite its obvious relation to Gnosticism) heresy, not a 'restoration' at all.
>That an indepth analysis of the operation of the
>will didn't come till much later still, doesn't surprise me in the
>least. I find it fascinating as to when and why it came to be.
You find it 'fascinating'? Then why do you keep turning your nose up at the
_real_ "in depth analysis of the operation of the will", insisting instead on
confusing the different senses of the word 'inclination', misusing 'volition'
etc.?
>> >Freedom to sin is affirmed while the freedom to holiness is denied.
>>
>> Except that unlike you, Augustine severely qualified that 'freedom to sin'
>>saying, "He serves freely who freely does the will of his master." But only by
>> proudly exalting your own opinion above the truth, puffing yourself up even
>>worse than those Augustine criticized in Ench. 30, can you deny that there are
>> those who do NOT "serve sin freely", but only unwillingly, and these are they
>>who call on God to liberate them, just as in the old Advent hymn, "Veni, veni,
>> Immanuel".
>>
>But the admonishment to chose life and not death, speaks of life as
>being the elective. Why then is death not to be thought of as being
>an elective according your interpretation of what Augustine is
>actually stating?
Clean up that sentence and make a sensible question out of it; perhaps then I
will answer. But "life as being the elective" makes no sense.
>> >Shedd adds,
>> >
>> >"Therefore Augustine and Calvin deny freedom to the sinner, as they
>> >often do, they do not deny his self-motion and voluntariness in sin,
>> >but his ability to the contrary, or his power to reverse and change
>> >his self-motion."
>>
>>Guess what : Shedd is not correct in his interpretation of Augustine either. But
>> he is not as far off as you: for Shedd only denies his _power_ to change the
>> self-motion, not his _will_ to change it (unless he denies that in another
>> passage). But you deny both. And it is for denying both that I have
>> to criticize you.
>>
>I deny it in that man cannot self appropriate it. The change is alien
>to man. Obviously that change is not absolute or there would be no
>"converts." But that is not the point. The point is that man's
>orientation is such that he has no internal ability to desire, let
>alone accomplish, that which is truly pleasing to God -apart from a
>selfish orientation.
There are so many problems with this mish-mash I don't know where to begin. I'll
arbitrarily start with your horrible choice of adjective, 'alien'. How can it be
'alien to man', when it is so internal to him? I would like to believe that this
is just a careless choice of the wrong word, after all, you _do_ carelessly
choose the wrong word SO often, but I have to doubt it. It seems to me that you
really are determined to deny that man has God's greatest gift to man, so
calling the change 'alien' would seem a small thing to you.
>> Really, Loren, I do not understand your blind and fanatical attachment
>> to Shedd.
>>
>ITS NOT SHEDD! It is the dynamic which he qualifies.
But as we now see, thanks to Charles's involvement, this 'dynamic' you so love
is NOT something Shedd shares with the early Calvinists. All the more reason to
think that Shedd is seriously mistaken.
>> Even your fellow Calvinist, Charles Hedrick, is now telling you that Shedd is
>> not a very faithful representation of Calvinism. So if you won't listen
>> to me, you now have Charles to listen to; shed your bonds attaching you
>> to Shedd.
>>
>I replied at length to that notation, more than adequately revealing
>that Shedd is in complete harmony with the basic Reformation tenents.
I don't think it was 'adequate'. But I will wait for Charles to reply himself.
>The confusion comes in that Charles confuses the distinction between
>regeneration and justification while you confuse the distinction
>between justification and sanctification.
I doubt that very much. But again, I will wait for Charles to reply. Then
perhaps we will see where the 'confusion' really lies. I doubt it is in
Charles;)
Besides: who is going to believe you, Loren, when you accuse others of confusing
words, when you show much more serious and frequent confusion with your own
misuse of words, such as the misuse of 'notation' just a few lines ago?
Then again, your misuse of the various terms of volitional vocabulary is much
more serious.
>I'm sure after reading what
>I have sent off as a reply, he will agree that Shedd is not of a
>"modernist" in the Reformed camp.
Well, I am not so sure. We will see who is right. But one thing I am sure of:
even if I am right and you are wrong, and Charles _still_ does not agree with
you concerning Shedd, you will blindly stick to your own version of the truth.
>> >selah!
>>
>> What desire to brag of your ignorance leads you to misuse 'selah' in
>> this way?
>> Is it related, I wonder, to the ignorance that leads you to misuse Augustine
>> citations? It really amazes me, Loren, that you still show no sign
>> of realizing how silly this sounds, ending your posts with 'selah'!
>ALL the word means is, "contemplate." or "think about it" with the
>inference of the wonder of it all.
No, no, no. That is not what it means at all. This is clear from the BDB entry.
Even you should know better than to take your word over the BDB entry.
>It wasn't the exclamation of the
>braggart, but the sheer wonderment of a sinner standing amazed at the
>gracious plan of salvation.
But where the "sheer wonder" should _really_ be is wonder that someone can get
so excited by his own misunderstanding of the word. For the word has NOTHING to
do with your claimed source of 'wonder'. All it (H5542) really is is a technical
musical term from the Psalms, as shown by the DBD entry, which reads:
Begin quote------------
1) to lift up, exalt
1a) Selah
1a1) a technical musical term probably showing accentuation, pause, interruption
End quote-------------
(Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon of Hebrew)
Yet the meaning 1) never shows up in a search for Strong's H5542! So it really
is just a technical musical term. Therefore your petulant misuse of it really
does just show your incorrigible ignorance.
hed...@geneva.rutgers.edu
not going to quote them, because you should be able to find them
easily enough.
As in past contributions, I'm not entirely sure how much substantial
disagreement I have with Loren and how much is due to my use of
Calvin's terminology and his use of later Reformed terminology. But
based purely on what Loren has quoted from Shedd, it does look like
there are some issues.
I'm going to deal first with the "logical" dependencies, and then talk
about how things actually work out in the Christian life.
LOGICAL DEPENDENCIES
I continue to be sceptical about the idea of regeneration being in
some sense the cause of justification. [Loren says: Regeneration
stands apart from justification as does the cause from its effect.] I
accept the idea that without regeneration a person is unable to repent
or pray for grace in any real sense. I could almost accept the idea of
some kind of change preceding faith. Coming to faith would seem to
presuppose that we have already passed from the world into God's
kingdom, at least to some extent, or we wouldn't have the ability to
believe and trust.
However the Reformers used faith in quite a broad sense. This is one
of the problems between Protestants and Catholics. Protestants use
faith to represent the whole cluster of changes that occur when we
receive God's gift of being engrafted into Christ. Catholics tend to
use the term more narrowly, but to use justification more broadly. I
believe the Reformers would use faith to include the basic changes
that allow us to respond to grace.
But aside from this, which may be primarily terminology, I continue to
have issues with your description:
1) If regeneration in your sense is the cause of anything it would
have to be faith, not justification. Justification is something God
does, with no prerequisite. Regeneration might in some scheme prepare
us to receive that in faith, but I'm quite sure Calvin wouldn't want
to establish any prerequisite in us for justification. Not even with
all of your qualifications about our being passive in producing it.
[It's still just like infused grace: after all, Catholics aren't
really Pelagians. Infused grace comes entirely from God.]
2) You say that the unregenerated is unable to pray for God's grace. I
accept that in principle, in the sense that only as we are regenerated
can we pray in the way God would have us pray. (However when we start
looking at actual people's experience, I think things are more
complex.) But the paragraph in which you say this seems dangerous:
Shedd's contention via the inclination of the will, is that the
unregenerated is unable to pray for God's grace. The difference is
illustrated between the prayer of the Pharisee and that of the
publican. The Pharisee "prayed to himself" while it was the publican
"who went home justified." There was and is not progression in
justification.
You seem to be using this passage to show that acceptable prayer is a
necessary prerequisite to justification. The passage is about the
attitude that is conducive to forgiveness. Clearly it is humility and
repentance, as shown by the publican.
However Protestant theology says that in a wider sense God's
forgiveness and acceptance actually comes before anything in us.
Grace is an attribute of God: his determination to save us even though
we don't deserve it. This is shown in other passages, where Jesus
starts by forgiving someone, but then expects them to respond with
humility and faith. If you're looking at the basic scheme of how
someone is saved, I think it's dubious to suggest that they need to
pray for grace before the initial justification. God goes before them,
enabling any prayer.
In some sense you agree, when you make the prerequisite be
regeneration, which is conceived of as something God does. But surely
he only regenerates someone whom he has already decided to forgive,
and transferred to the kingdom of his Son. Setting up even a logical
dependency between justification and anything in us seems to deny the
basic insights of the Reformers -- even if the thing in us was put
there by God.
CHRONOLOGY
As I've noted above, I see all of the discussion so far as properly
speaking about logical dependencies, not chronological order in which
things happen.
There are entirely too many neat schemes about the order in which
different aspects of salvation occur. Every theologian has a slightly
different scheme.
If taken chronologically (and some of your language suggests that), I
have a real problem with most of these schemes, particularly one-time
regeneration. Now I recognize that we're using regeneration
differently. You're using the term for something that occurs before
justification, where I'm using it for the long process of rebuilding
us in the image of God.
But if taken out of the context of logical dependency and used as an
actual description of how Christians develop, I don't think I accept
anything as necessarily one time beyond Christ's death for us and
God's determination to save us.
You can't accurately evaluate someone's life until you look at it from
God's perspective at the end. At that point, you can see that
everything, even prayers made early in the game when motivations were
very dubious, is part of the process by which the Holy Spirit moved
the person.
Of course there are major turning points in many people's lives. But
I don't see any reason to assume that for everyone there is exactly
one point where they are regenerated. I believe this is turning
certain types of Christian experience into a model that eveyone is
required to follow.
As you look at the history of theology, I think you can see a whole
series of blind alleys that parts of the Church went down because they
tried to draw up schemes for how the Holy Spirit always worked. I
don't have space to give you all the examples, but to indicate two:
(1) The penance/indulgence system that Luther so objected to seems to
me to have developed from an attempt to codify forgiveness. (2)
Reformed theology had problems trying to deal with people's
uncertainty with whether they were elect. I believe any real
confidence has to be a personal confidence in God as our Father; the
moment we try to produce a doctrine about assurance, we're in trouble.
Matthew Johnson
>> In article <d0xWc.1244$9P.1048@trnddc04>, Loren says...
[snip]
>> But if you _do_ read him the correct way, then you see that
>> Augustine does not
>> support "total depravity" unequivocally.
>>
>To a degree, I will agree with you here.
Shocking;)
> However, he and Jerome
>countered (I don't remember if it was in letters or a formal
>statement) the view of depravity held by Origen wherein he argued
>"concerning the necessary mutability of the will in created beings"
>leading him to infer that evil was "ever germinating afresh" (Neander
>1.656) In that they wrote against Origen at this point infers that to
>some degree they both held to a quasi total depravity doctrine.
Your argument to support this conclusion is r-e-a-l-l-y stretched. And by now
you should know better than to rely on Neander.
>Did they develope it? I don't think they did. I think it was inferred
>and a given.
And I don't just 'think' it, I _know_ that they rejected your version of "total
depravity" as Manichean. What was "inferred and a given" was that your "total
depravity" goes too far. Worse yet, it attributes evil to our nature itself,
even though that nature is made by God. But the Fathers did not do this,
instead, attributing evil to a parasitical effect _on_ nature, hampering and
misdirecting it.
[snip]
>It has to be somewhere admitted that there is no logical intermediate
>between Calvinism and Arminianism.
No, it does not. And indeed, this is _exactly_ what I deny. You, like so many
'Reform' theologians before you, are building your castle in the air on a false
dichotomy.
> It is an impossibility to say that men are both totally and yet
> partially depraved.
But that isn't what I said. So this is a red herring.
[snip]
>> Nor, for that matter, does he deny (as you do) that the unregenerate can
>> _desire_ to be freed from the sin in which they lie prostrate.
>>
>That is a very different thing than seeking to be God pleasing.
No, it isn't. For there is no other way to be freed.
>Wishing to be freed can be just another self-oriented desire.
As it is in the person who says he wishes to be free, but avoids Baptism.
>Though
>they will not desire to be in Heaven, certainly the unregenerate will
>"desire to be freed" from the accountability of their sin.
But wait a minute! That is something quite different. I said "be freed from the
sin", I did NOT say "freed from the _accountability_".
Stop putting words in my mouth.
>But the
>object is always self serving, not God pleasing.
As no doubt your object is also self-serving, when you pull all these red
herrings out of a hat and put words in my mouth, things I NEVER said.
[snip]
>If I remember right, this is from the website you referred me to.
So why didn't you give them credit?
>If not then it was from the "Master Christian Library" CD.
Same question: So why didn't you give them credit?
>Either way, you're quibbling.
Ah, how convenient it would be for you, if your charge of 'quibbling' could
really stick!
>If it was the later then here is the info as given
>by the editor:
>
>"The three leaders of the now historic Ango-Catholic movement of
>Oxford,
[snip]
>The Oxford Library was undertaken not so much for an historical, as
>for an
>apologetic and dogmatic purpose. It was to furnish authentic proof for
>the
>supposed or real agreement of the Anglo-Catholic school with the faith
>and
>practice of the ancient church before the Greek schism."
This by NO MEANS proves what you set out to prove. Oh, no. For the Reformers too
always claimed that their belief was in "real agreement with the faith and
practice of the ancient church before the Greek schism." So it would be quite
natural for Pusey & the others to claim to do this while _defending_ Reform
Theology, and slanting their translation in the process.
>It is obvious that your presumption
>>
>> And indeed, it looks like the translator did this to make Augustine's support
>> for Reform theology look better than it really is.
>>
>is not only wrong, but was written to the purpose of Catholic
>advocacy.
No, no. It said 'Anglo-Catholic'. This is not the same at all. On the contrary:
the Anglican Church is well known for being "augustinian in its pulpit and
pelagian in its prayer-book". 'Schizophrenia' is the term that comes to my mind.
>> For 'perdidit' here could
>> also have been translated 'lost, ruined', NOT 'destroyed'. And this would
>> actually match the rest of the paragraph better! See below.
>>
>Quibbling. The illustration is making a point.
And you do not understand the point, which is why I had to bring up the
difference; it is not 'quibbling'.
[snip]
>> But this translation is simply WRONG. It does not say "and the free will is
>> destroyed" here, but "amissum est et liberum arbitrium" i.e., "and the
>> free will is lost/sent away".
>>
>more quibbling. And here this "Oxford" translation was to advocate
>the NON-Reformed position.
No, it was not.
[snip]
>> So you see, the saint is NOT claiming that the "bound servant" is forced to
>> delight in sin; rather, that the only 'freedom' he has, if he has any at
>> all, is to delight in sin. But he can still rebel against the
>> usurper who bound him, wishing to serve his real master instead.
>>
>No he can't! Yes he can! No he can't! Yes he can! No he can't!
>Yes he can! No he can't! Yes he can! No he can't! Yes he can! No
>he can't! Yes he can! No he can't! Yes he can!
>
>This gets us no where.
You only just now noticed? No wonder you haven't noticed how it is you who drag
the thread down to this level.
>> >But thereafter_he_will_not_be_free_ to_do_right unless
>> >he is delivered from the bondage of sin and begins to be the servant
>> >of righteousness. [as Paul argues in Rom 6:18-20, 23]
>>
>>But don't forget; as in Rom 6, the new servant of righteousness is still free to
>> regress, which is _why_ we are given the warning of Rom 6:16:
>>
>> Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to any one as obedient
>> slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin,
>> which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to
>> righteousness? (Rom 6:16 RSVA)
>>
>Of course. silul justus et peccator. Duh!
A fine answer for someone who loves to be first with the answer -- even if it is
wrong. Why, you couldn't even slow down enough to type it right!
>> This is stated as a general condition, there is NOTHING restricting it to
>> before/after.
>>
>Oh Yes There Is.
Only in the Reform imagination.
>There is the entire flow of the Pauline arguement
>from condemnation of the heathen, to condemnation of Jew, to
>condemnation universal, to justification then sanctification then
>glorification then the necessary debate of election.
Nope!
> There is a
>logical progression and Rom 6 comes after Rom 5 wherein Paul announces
>that the believer has been immediately declared righteous and
>therefore God is now at peace with him.
In case you haven't noticed, you are relying on a version of the text that is
marked '{C}' in UBS. That means it is rather uncertain what the text really is.
I prefer to base my understanding of Paul on the subjunctive instead of UBS's
indicative, AS DID CHRYSOSTOM. But once this is done, what _you_ claim is the
'logical progression' evaporates. Another 'logical progression' appears in its
place. But this one is really far more 'logical'.
> Rom 6 and 7 speak to the justified Christian.
TO, yes. But not necessarily ABOUT.
>>And another Apostle is even _more_ strident in warning us against
>> this, saying:
>>
>> Forsaking the right way they have gone astray; they have
>> followed the way of Balaam, the son of Be'or, who loved
>> gain from wrongdoing, (2Pe 2:15 RSVA)
>>
>Will address this in a separate post. You are too simplistic in your
>interpretation of this passage.
And I see you 'addressed' it very poorly. No surprise though, since you _need_
to avoid understanding the Apostle in order to hold on to your precious OSAS
eisegesis.
Loren
> In article <BnwYc.13695$tI.8790@trndny04>, Loren says...
>
> > There is a
> >logical progression and Rom 6 comes after Rom 5 wherein Paul announces
> >that the believer has been immediately declared righteous and
> >therefore God is now at peace with him.
>
> In case you haven't noticed, you are relying on a version of the text that is
> marked '{C}' in UBS. That means it is rather uncertain what the text really is.
> I prefer to base my understanding of Paul on the subjunctive instead of UBS's
> indicative, AS DID CHRYSOSTOM. But once this is done, what _you_ claim is the
> 'logical progression' evaporates. Another 'logical progression' appears in its
> place. But this one is really far more 'logical'.
>
Sorry, but you can't maneuver out of this. For in 5:1, "peace" is in
the present. Peace can not be thought of as being present unless
justification is past. The logical progression also expands grace vs
law. You do not allow for grace. Your view is that justification is
eventual while the Pauline teaching is that it is immediate and the
permenent indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the witness to this fact.
You add to the finished work of Christ. You make salvation a work
though you veil it. You yourself have often discounted the fact that
grace cannot enter into the field until justices has been served.
There is no issue of merit concerning the gracious bestowal of God's
gift of efficient faith. In fact, the elect is first regenerated in
order that he/she might then be enlightened to receive the gift.
Justification is an effect of the work of God to first regenerate the
elect. Only then can the elect "believe".
> > Rom 6 and 7 speak to the justified Christian.
>
> TO, yes. But not necessarily ABOUT.
>
Both. Every Christian walks about with a self-inclination. The
admonishments and warnings in the Epistles verify this fact. Ever
born again believer knows experientially that this is so. "If we say
we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves." "Sin" is nothing less
than the "old man" which is nothing less than the fallen nature,
rebellious inclination.
NO human being, other than the Christ, ever lived a sinless life.
>
Loren
>
> As in past contributions, I'm not entirely sure how much substantial
> disagreement I have with Loren and how much is due to my use of
> Calvin's terminology and his use of later Reformed terminology. But
> based purely on what Loren has quoted from Shedd, it does look like
> there are some issues.
>
For the most part, I think we agree. I think there is some confusion
but not disagreement. Also, anything further I write might only add
to the confusion -my failing. But I also think you do not fully
understand Shedd's contention concerning the "inclination" of the
will. Also, I am assuming that you adhere to total depravity?
>
snip
>
> 1) If regeneration in your sense is the cause of anything it would
> have to be faith, not justification. Justification is something God
> does, with no prerequisite. Regeneration might in some scheme prepare
> us to receive that in faith, but I'm quite sure Calvin wouldn't want
> to establish any prerequisite in us for justification. Not even with
> all of your qualifications about our being passive in producing it.
> [It's still just like infused grace: after all, Catholics aren't
> really Pelagians. Infused grace comes entirely from God.]
>
I know a what the RC doctrine of infused grace is. I see no
similarity because in truth, my point of contention precedes the
actual declaration of righteousness. Justification, as I view it, is
immediate, not that of being eventual yet inevitable as the RC
doctrine of infusion maintains.
Yes, "infusion" is entirely from God. I did not say otherwise. Nor
did I contend that it does not involve faith, as all too many
Protestants fail to understand. Also, none of the particulars of
infusion are applicable. I think you are confusing similarities in
dynamic with similarities in actual.
>
> 2) You say that the unregenerated is unable to pray for God's grace. I
> accept that in principle, in the sense that only as we are regenerated
> can we pray in the way God would have us pray. (However when we start
> looking at actual people's experience, I think things are more
> complex.)
>
But "experience" bespeaks of the external which only reflects the
internal. This too involves the doctrine of depravity. It does not
simply involve an improper prayer, but inclination to do so. "There
is none who seeks after God." There is no actual turning away from
self to orient oneself to please God. This cannot be done unless God
first regenerates the individual. From that moment one, there is
progression, but there is no progression by the individual antecedent
to that. Sure, I will allow for providence prior to actual
regeneration, but that does not involve either the will or the
self-consciousness of the individual.
>
> But the paragraph in which you say this seems dangerous:
>
> Shedd's contention via the inclination of the will, is that the
> unregenerated is unable to pray for God's grace. The difference is
> illustrated between the prayer of the Pharisee and that of the
> publican. The Pharisee "prayed to himself" while it was the publican
> "who went home justified." There was and is not progression in
> justification.
>
> You seem to be using this passage to show that acceptable prayer is a
> necessary prerequisite to justification.
>
No, that was not my point. My point was that the publican could not
have even thought to go to the Synagogue in that "frame of mind"
unless he had not already be regenerated. Both men were inclined to
go pray in the Synagogue. However, the inclinations point to
different ends. There cannot be two different ends without
regeneration for "all have turned aside." To reverse course requires
that there first be a regeneration of the inclination of the will.
>
>The passage is about the
> attitude that is conducive to forgiveness. Clearly it is humility and
> repentance, as shown by the publican.
>
Yes. I am not arguing that fact. I gave that passage as an
illustration to illustrate the fact justification is immediate, not
progressive. This is Christ's own revelation for He declares that the
publican went home justified, past tense. It was a completed act.
This does not advocate for infusion which you feel I am pragmatically
teaching.
The dynamic is that first God must regenerate within us a new
inclination of the will. VanTil also teaches this in his Theistic
Ethics, differentiating it from RCism basis for ethics.
>
> However Protestant theology says that in a wider sense God's
> forgiveness and acceptance actually comes before anything in us.
>
Hmmm. Rom 5:1 seems to indicate that present peace is a result of
past justification if the tenses mean anything. I believe that there
are two imputations at the moment of being justified. One is the
impartation of Christ's righteousness into my account and the
imputation of my sin into His. "Wider sense" could mean that it was
historically required that Christ die prior to forgiveness and
acceptance. But all one would have to point to to counter that charge
is the case of Abraham's being declared just. Or in an even "wider
view", that we were chosen prior to the creation of the universe.
>
> Grace is an attribute of God: his determination to save us even though
> we don't deserve it. This is shown in other passages, where Jesus
> starts by forgiving someone, but then expects them to respond with
> humility and faith. If you're looking at the basic scheme of how
> someone is saved, I think it's dubious to suggest that they need to
> pray for grace before the initial justification.
>
That wasn't my contention so the argument is moot.
>
>God goes before them, enabling any prayer.
>
Correct. Regeneration of the inclination of the will antecedent.
>
> In some sense you agree, when you make the prerequisite be
> regeneration, which is conceived of as something God does. But surely
> he only regenerates someone whom he has already decided to forgive,
>
He only regenerates the elect. Though the call to accept is made to
all, only those who have been enabled through the regeneration by the
Spirit can respond. Both in Rom 1 and in Rom 9, the point is that
illumination rejected only furthers darkens. But darkness is the
given. Progressive revelation as evidenced by the plagues in
Pharaoh's court only caused to further hardening or darkening of the
will. Therefore, one must conclude that regeneration by the Spirit is
also antecedent to enlightenment by the Spirit. As I have quoted
Luther to Matthew, so to you here at this point - extra nos.
>
> and transferred to the kingdom of his Son. Setting up even a logical
> dependency between justification and anything in us seems to deny the
> basic insights of the Reformers -- even if the thing in us was put
> there by God.
>
"Dependency" or "contingency?" I believe that justification is the
eventuality. I would not say that it was "dependent" upon
regeneration in the same way I would state that it was dependent upon
Christ. Which brings us to...
>
> CHRONOLOGY
>
> As I've noted above, I see all of the discussion so far as properly
> speaking about logical dependencies, not chronological order in which
> things happen.
>
> There are entirely too many neat schemes about the order in which
> different aspects of salvation occur. Every theologian has a slightly
> different scheme.
>
> If taken chronologically (and some of your language suggests that), I
> have a real problem with most of these schemes, particularly one-time
> regeneration. Now I recognize that we're using regeneration
> differently. You're using the term for something that occurs before
> justification, where I'm using it for the long process of rebuilding
> us in the image of God.
>
I would think that to solidify definition, that one would not use
regeneration but rather sanctification to describe that procession
toward glorification. I view regeneration as a specific act of
re*creation*. Not those things which proceed out of that factuality.
I really think it is a wrong use of the term, theologically speaking
simply because "sanctification" alleviates the confusion.
Regeneration *is* a specific act. It is the action wherein the HS
reorients the will of the elect so that he may incline himself to God
after the graces of enlightenment and faith have been bestowed.
>
> But if taken out of the context of logical dependency and used as an
> actual description of how Christians develop, I don't think I accept
> anything as necessarily one time beyond Christ's death for us and
> God's determination to save us.
>
Yes, but the specifics of the case necessarily involves anthropology.
Again, I wonder where you stand as to depravity. If it is total, just
what does that mean anthropologically? It is certainly agreed that
man was created with his will only inclined to please God, i.e. holy.
I would hope you would agree with me, that after the fall, that
inclination was totally reoriented. "In that day you shall surely
die" includes the alienation of the will. "Eve was deceived" but Adam
made a self-determination to incline his will other than its original
inclination. One cannot be only partially dead. "Dead in our sin"
speaks toward totality. Death also speaks of removed opportunity.
Therefore it was "necessary" to recreate that facility within man from
which volition orients out of. Again, it is not theocentric in
nature, but anthropocentric.
>
> You can't accurately evaluate someone's life until you look at it from
> God's perspective at the end. At that point, you can see that
> everything, even prayers made early in the game when motivations were
> very dubious, is part of the process by which the Holy Spirit moved
> the person.
>
So? I'm not debating that. But as I mentioned above about Pharaoh,
man left to himself will only reject the light offered. I fear that
your objections rise from presuppositions which are less than the
Reformed position concerning total depravity.
>
> Of course there are major turning points in many people's lives. But
> I don't see any reason to assume that for everyone there is exactly
> one point where they are regenerated. I believe this is turning
> certain types of Christian experience into a model that eveyone is
> required to follow.
>
Apples and oranges. I don't know how else to qualify it. You say you
don't like to pursue this chronologically, but I think you fail to
grasp what I am distinguishing because it does involve a chronology.
Nor does that require experiential uniformity. It merely requires
that something be initially caused within us (again) before the
individual can begin the process of turning to God. Regeneration as
an act, as opposed to a process, does not mean that the moment of
conscious belief occurs exactly 10 minutes later. It might not occur
for some, for years. I believe this is what is noted in Heb 6. Once
the elected is regenerated and enlightened, if one then turns away,
only God can lead him out of that wilderness even as Christ was led
into it. This is something of Paul's contention in Rom 7 & 8. The
regenerated will is still powerless to perform what the will now
desires to do. It requires the further ministry of the Spirit to
empower and to lead. This speaks of individual freedom and individual
experience.
>
> As you look at the history of theology, I think you can see a whole
> series of blind alleys that parts of the Church went down because they
> tried to draw up schemes for how the Holy Spirit always worked. I
> don't have space to give you all the examples, but to indicate two:
> (1) The penance/indulgence system that Luther so objected to seems to
> me to have developed from an attempt to codify forgiveness. (2)
> Reformed theology had problems trying to deal with people's
> uncertainty with whether they were elect. I believe any real
> confidence has to be a personal confidence in God as our Father; the
> moment we try to produce a doctrine about assurance, we're in trouble.
>
Ok, let's take the life of Luther. It seems that his whole life was a
regenerated progression upto that moment of the lightening strike, as
well as upto that moment where he read Rom 3:28. There are certainly
outward and internal influences which prepare the elect to come to
that conscious moment where he "inclines" to God. However, the act of
regenerating the inclination of the will was certainly antecedent to
any conscious inclining to God, even though, looking back at that
moment, the elect sees numerous events leading up to the moment of
belief. Again, I'm not maintaining that is an experiential chronology
from the time of regeneration to the moment of belief. Nor is there a
Divine chronology other than to say that first we are elected, then we
are regenerated, then we are called. For the elect cannot be thought
of as being called if at the moment of calling he is incapable of
accepting that call -can he? Is that how God operates? I would think
the nature order would be just that, orderly. The chosen are
regenerated such that they are capacitated to receive the subsequent
calling to turn to Christ. Man is incapable of turning to Christ
unless the Father calls him and the Father would be less than honest
if He called man prior to his ability to receive it. So there is a
necessary chronology. Man must first have a new will regenerated
within him before any calling. And if man cannot come to Christ prior
to the Father's calling, then that seems to imply that he does not so
incline himself to pray, let alone think about Christ's involvement in
that prayer, intercessory or otherwise, Death sealed man's
orientation. Only God can regenerated the dead orientation of the
will. Sola gratia.
----
[Yes, I believe in total depravity. However what I understand by it
is that all aspects are corrupted, not that the image of God has been
completely destroyed. --clh]
Loren
> I am assuming that you adhere to total depravity?
> ----
>
> [Yes, I believe in total depravity. However what I understand by it
> is that all aspects are corrupted, not that the image of God has been
> completely destroyed. --clh]
Okay, I think I am beginning to perceive your objection. "Will" is
one aspect of the "image." And in stating that the inclination of the
will became corrupted, one might conclude that the image itself was
corrupted. I will have to think that through. However, I am inclined
to change my definition of "image" rather than change my understanding
concerning the corruption of the inclination of the will. It just
fits the scriptural record too precisely and answers too many
theological questions. More than all of that, however, it provides me
with a *real* answer for my own existential experience. For me, it
conforms to what is. It conforms to the doctrine of depravity. It
conforms to the doctrine of harmatology, soteriology and even in some
aspects, why some eschatological events are scheduled.
All I can ask is that you read the 3rd ed of Shedd's DT. I would lend
you a copy if that is how it must be, but I think once you get into
his system, you would want to have a copy of it in your library.
Matthew Johnson
>
>Matthew Johnson <matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:<KlbZc.63$_%3.27@trnddc06>...
>> In article <BnwYc.13695$tI.8790@trndny04>, Loren says...
>
>>
>> > There is a
>> >logical progression and Rom 6 comes after Rom 5 wherein Paul announces
>> >that the believer has been immediately declared righteous and
>> >therefore God is now at peace with him.
>>
>> In case you haven't noticed, you are relying on a version of the text that is
>> marked '{C}' in UBS. That means it is rather uncertain what the text
>> really is.
>> I prefer to base my understanding of Paul on the subjunctive instead of UBS's
>> indicative, AS DID CHRYSOSTOM. But once this is done, what _you_
>> claim is the 'logical progression' evaporates. Another 'logical progression'
>> appears in its place. But this one is really far more 'logical'.
>>
>Sorry, but you can't maneuver out of this.
Sorry, but I just did;) And I will do it again!
> For in 5:1, "peace" is in the present.
No, that is simply not so. I say, with Chrysostom, that it is present
_subjunctive_; but for your claimed "peace is in the present", it must be
present _indicative_. Without that, your whole argument falls apart like a house
of cards.
>Peace can not be thought of as being present unless justification is past.
Ah, but maybe that _is_ why Paul wrote the subjunctive, "let us have peace",
because it is not yet present.
>The logical progression also expands grace vs law.
But in which _way_ should it be expanded? Your way, or Paul's?
> You do not allow for grace.
Not true.
>Your view is that justification is
>eventual while the Pauline teaching is that it is immediate and the
>permenent indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the witness to this fact.
Also not true.
>You add to the finished work of Christ.
And again, not true. You call 'finished' what is not finished, and then whine
when people point out your error.
>You make salvation a work
>though you veil it. You yourself have often discounted the fact that
>grace cannot enter into the field until justices has been served.
What ARE you talking about?
>There is no issue of merit concerning the gracious bestowal of God's
>gift of efficient faith.
You are the one who insits on using the word 'merit', not me. And you insist on
misusing it, too.
>In fact, the elect is first regenerated in
>order that he/she might then be enlightened to receive the gift.
>Justification is an effect of the work of God to first regenerate the
>elect. Only then can the elect "believe".
And since what you 'believe' is what the saints rejected as monstrous heresy, I
would have to say that you have not been regenerated yet.
>> > Rom 6 and 7 speak to the justified Christian.
>>
>> TO, yes. But not necessarily ABOUT.
>>
>Both. Every Christian walks about with a self-inclination.
What was this supposed to mean? You misuse 'inclination' so often, you reduce
your own words to meaninglessness. But you used this new term 'self-inclination'
only twice in the last four years in these NGs! So you leave me doubting whether
you really mean what you say. Why, you even leave me doubting whether or not you
even understand what you say.
>The admonishments and warnings in the Epistles verify this fact.
No. They verify that the present subjunctive is correct in Rom 5:1
> Every born again believer knows experientially that this is so.
Have you asked them all? No? I didn't think so. Try asking, for example,
Jefferey Sargent;)
>"If we say
>we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves." "Sin" is nothing less
>than the "old man" which is nothing less than the fallen nature,
>rebellious inclination.
>
>NO human being, other than the Christ, ever lived a sinless life.
This is neither here nor there. We are NOT talking about who lives a sinless
life and who does not; what we are really talking about is who has picked up his
cross and followed, versus who has not (Mt 16:24); who is really pursuing
righteousness (Prv 15:9) versus who it is who is an abomination before the Lord.
Loren
> lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) wrote in message news:<iKvZc.1246$UR2.514@trnddc08>...
>
> > I am assuming that you adhere to total depravity?
>
> > ----
> >
> > [Yes, I believe in total depravity. However what I understand by it
> > is that all aspects are corrupted, not that the image of God has been
> > completely destroyed. --clh]
>
> Okay, I think I am beginning to perceive your objection. "Will" is
> one aspect of the "image." And in stating that the inclination of the
> will became corrupted, one might conclude that the image itself was
> corrupted. I will have to think that through.
>
total depravity does not equate to say absolute depravity or man as
bad as he can possibly be. I have always been careful to note that
TD only notes that man is a bad as he needs to be.
The iniquity of man has not entirely destroyed God's original image or
work in man. Yet it is rightly said, "You hate, O Lord, all
workers of iniquity." However the divine nature at once both
wrathful, in seeking justice, and compassionate. "In my wrath I smote
you, but in my favor have I had mercy upon you" (Isa 60:10). God is
both the subject and the object, active and passive in the working of
vicarious atonement.
Christianity has taken a page from Plato, and deduced that the image
of God in man speaks of the will, emotions and rational aspect of his
being. Prior to Aristotle, man's purpose was to be found in primarily
the rational while afterwards, will dominated. Christianity
continues this vantage but not based upon Aristotelian principles, but
on the Genesis record of Adam, not being deceived as Eve, willfully
inclined away from the supremacy of God. That inclination was total.
Remember, volition operates out of the inclination of the will
therefore freedom is not impinged, so to say. Man is as free as he
ever was with the qualification being that his orientation is now
permanently bent toward self, not toward its Creator. And, as the
effect cannot touch its cause, so the free will of man cannot turn
around and undo the damage of the deadening of the inclination. Man
has no power of animation to regenerate any aspect of its deadness
into life. That is solely a providence of the sovereign will of God.
But there is certainly chronology.
"Hereby we perceive the love of God, because He laid down His life for
us" (1 Jn 3:16).
Man's deliverance from "death" of the inclination of the will is
preceded by a deliverance from its penalty. In the same regard,
justification precedes sanctification, an error that Patristic
soteriology sometimes confused (1 Cor 5:5; Jn 8:34; Rom 6:16).
God's love is perceived by the pre-vention of His mercy to make a
vicarious atonement to satisfy the requirement or debt incurred which
divine justice demands remitted to satisfy the Divine's offended
holiness. Offended holiness precedes justice requiring a debt to be
remitted, which itself precedes the work of vicarious atonement, which
precedes the satisfaction, which precedes forgiveness, which precedes
man's freedom from guilt, which precedes man's recognition of God
being at peace with the redeemed.
As compassion is the emotion of God and reconciliation is an act of
God resulting from that compassion, so fiduciary faith is a result of
God's act of regenerating the one whom He has called.
Would you agree that is better to use the term "sanctification" to
denote the process of being made holy rather than the term
"regeneration?" We are not being made "regenerate" but being made
"holy" (sanctified). Regeneration better speaks of the act of God
which become the causality of sanctification.
Loren
>
> > For in 5:1, "peace" is in the present.
>
> No, that is simply not so. I say, with Chrysostom, that it is present
> _subjunctive_; but for your claimed "peace is in the present", it must be
> present _indicative_. Without that, your whole argument falls apart like a house
> of cards.
>
but just like many of the fathers, your soteriology errors in
confusing sanctification when a passage is speaking of justification
and vica versa. The whole tenor of the Pauline argument is that it is
a work of God. Justification is a singular declaration by God based
not upon the work of man, but on the vicarious work of atonement
achieved by Christ. If God's mercy was great enough to move Him to
plan for, perform and recognize a vicarious atonement for man's sin,
it is certainly great enough to move man to secure the consequences of
such an act. Salvation is assured. Forgiveness is inseparably
connected with atonement and remission with propititation. The former
of each stands to the later in the very same relation as that of
effect to cause. Your objection is Socinian in nature. Any
comparision of hyper to anti recognizes that though often
interchangeable, it is the former which speaks of both substitution
and benefit. When the sinner suffers the penalty due to his
transgression, he is lost forever. But when God incarnate suffers the
penalty *for* him, he is save forever.
"If Christ be for us, who can be against us?"
"If it is God who justifies, who can then bring a charge against His
elect?"
"If by His vicarious atonement, Christ died, raised and interceeds,
then who can condemn?"
"If He spared not His only Son, but delievered Him up *for* us," "then
who shall separate us from the love of Christ?"
Loren
> >
> >NO human being, other than the Christ, ever lived a sinless life.
>
> This is neither here nor there. We are NOT talking about who lives a sinless
> life and who does not; what we are really talking about is who has picked up his
> cross and followed, versus who has not (Mt 16:24); who is really pursuing
> righteousness (Prv 15:9) versus who it is who is an abomination before the Lord.
>
No, this is very much the issue for it involves the depravity of man.
That "all sinned" indicates that "there are none who does good." Man
cannot generate even a correct opinion of God apart from first have
God move toward man and regenerate his mind, emotions and will. The
mind is a "slave" to unrighteousness and Satan, as theos of this
world, blinds all unregenerated men to the gospel. "There is none who
understands" yet they are "always learning and never able to come to
the knowledge of the truth." Simple put there is nothing in man which
has not been corrupted, including the will. Unless God first calls,
regenerates, enlightens and then invests His gracious gift of fiducial
faith, no man can change the inclination of his will by turning to
God. "There is none who seeks for God."
And in answer your objection, there is none who pursue righteousness
apart from the leading and empowering of the person of the Holy
Spirit. Man must first be regenerated before he can turn to God
because his inclination is only and always other. It is only after
God has regenerated the original inclination with the elect that the
elect can then humble themselves, understand the gospel, ascent to it,
and then place one's full weight upon it. But in order for that
choice to be made, it must first have the inclination of the will
regenerated.
You can quip negatively all you want, but unless you can provide a
better explaination, you only come off as being quarrelsome.
Loren
>
> > For in 5:1, "peace" is in the present.
>
> No, that is simply not so. I say, with Chrysostom, that it is present
> _subjunctive_; but for your claimed "peace is in the present", it must be
> present _indicative_. Without that, your whole argument falls apart like a house
> of cards.
in the Syriac, Coptic and Vulgate versions, as read by several of the
patristic writers, do so interpret 5:1, reading "let us have peace"
instead of "we have peace." However, the common reading is "we have."
It is this reading which best fits the context. The Pauline
contention is that peace is the result of justification by faith. The
previous chapters illustrate the fact that the man who relies on his
own work for justification, can have no peace.
There is another point which cannot be overlooked. This peace is not
a state of human consciousness, but rather it is the justified
position to God. It is not one's conscious state which Paul is
speaking of, but rather the elect's standing as having been placed "in
Christ." It is entirely a work of grace and is "all from Him, through
Him and to Him." The whole tenor of the Pauline crescendo is that the
justified believer has peace, through the work of Christ which has
been imputed unto him.
Rom. 5:1 Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with
God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
Eph. 2:13-14 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off
have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our
peace, who made both {groups into} one, and broke down the barrier of
the dividing wall,
Col. 1:20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having
made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, {I say},
whether things on earth or things in heaven.
That peace is a present condition in Rom 5:1 is supported directly by
what he contents elsewhere as well. It is because it is a work of the
Godhead based upon the vicarious atonement of the 2nd Person, that
peace is achieved objectively by God alone. The great subject of
divine reconciliation lies in and depends upon, the doctrine of the
Trinity. It is objective in its relation to the divine nature. It is
subject and secondary in its relation to the guilty creature for whom
it is given. It is ONLY because God is at peace with the elect
sinner, that He has cast off judical wrath as far as the east is from
the west, that man may then consciously have inward peace. How else
could we be called to enter boldly into Holy of Holies, into the very
presense of God if peace was tenuous and reliant upon the sinner? It
is because now, once and for all, all dread of divine wrath/ vengeance
has been put away, that Paul can draw the arguments of Rom 8:31ff. It
is because "justified" is a historic fact with no thought of
procession, that Paul equally considers the believer "glorfiED."
Sorry, but the tenor of the Pauline theological argument of Romans is
that "There is NOW therefore, no condemnation" for the justified
therefore the believers position is not only one of securing peace but
securing security, i.e. OSAS. Because, "For from Him and through Him
and to Him are all things. To Him {be} the glory forever. Amen."
Salvation is entirely a gracious work of the Godhead. All man brings
to it is his sin and his open hands on bended knees. There is no
addition (merit) nor deletion (demerit) involved because man is
derivative, not creative as to holiness.
Matthew Johnson
>
>Matthew Johnson <matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:<_EP_c.1299$Gi5.573@trndny05>...
>
>> >
>> >NO human being, other than the Christ, ever lived a sinless life.
>>
>> This is neither here nor there. We are NOT talking about who lives a sinless
>>life and who does not; what we are really talking about is who has picked up his
>> cross and followed, versus who has not (Mt 16:24); who is really pursuing
>>righteousness (Prv 15:9) versus who it is who is an abomination before the Lord.
>>
>No, this is very much the issue for it involves the depravity of man.
Well, yes, it _involves_ it. But you continue to distort beyond all recognition
what that 'involvement' is. Largely this is because you cannot focus on one
topic, but must continue to distract with irrelevant or out of place objections.
>That "all sinned" indicates that "there are none who does good."
We have been over this before. Again, look at the original context: St. Paul was
NOT talking about all mankind, not even all unregenerate mankind.
>Man
>cannot generate even a correct opinion of God apart from first have
>God move toward man and regenerate his mind, emotions and will.
And what, then, are we to think of those who _claim_ to have this regeneration,
yet _still_ generate only incorrect opinions of God by denying free will?
> The
>mind is a "slave" to unrighteousness and Satan, as theos of this
>world, blinds all unregenerated men to the gospel.
So you love to repeat. You even seem to think yoru mindless repetition
constitutes 'proof'. It does not.
> "There is none who
>understands" yet they are "always learning and never able to come to
>the knowledge of the truth."
Sounds to me like he just described the Reform Tradition;)
[snip]
>You can quip negatively all you want, but unless you can provide a
>better explaination, you only come off as being quarrelsome.
Well, if it isn't the pot calling the kettle black! You are living in a fool's
paradise, Loren, if you think your own posts on this topic and in this thread
come accross as anything other than 'quarrelsome'.
You will not fool many with your double standard.
Loren
>
> >That "all sinned" indicates that "there are none who does good."
>
> We have been over this before. Again, look at the original context: St. Paul was
> NOT talking about all mankind, not even all unregenerate mankind.
>
How can you read Romans and not understand the logical flow of Paul's
argument and then conclude "not even all unregenerate mankind." Paul,
ex-Pharisee, certainly condemns all men, from Adam to present, as
being "without excuse." Rom 1:18ff is the condemnation of the Gentile
nations. Rom 2, condemnation of the Jew who thought both his
birthright and his religious good works placed him in a favorable
position before God. In Rom 3 Paul combines both groups and concludes
that "Jews and Greeks are all under sin."
And if that were not enough, then in 3:10ff he completes the picture
of total depravity of mankind before the bar of a thrice holy God.
In Rom 3:22 "all those who believe" is as inclusive as "all sinned" in
the following verse. The negations with 3:10ff are not qualified.
They are all inclusive.
>
> >Man
> >cannot generate even a correct opinion of God apart from first have
> >God move toward man and regenerate his mind, emotions and will.
>
> And what, then, are we to think of those who _claim_ to have this regeneration,
> yet _still_ generate only incorrect opinions of God by denying free will?
>
Again, I don't care what you say, you do not grasp the distinction
being made. Tell me this, if we take your argument to frutition, who
didn't Christ die for if it is said He died for "all?" What are the
alternatives? That man CAN, in and of himself, pull up his religious
boot straps and justify himself before God? Man cannot do this even
with the Romish doctrine of "infusion", as their later doctrine of
purgatory attests. Did not Adam's first son fully illustrate the fall
of the race? Did not the flood illustrate total depravity? What of
Babel? What of the release of Satan after the 1000 yr reign of Christ
on the earth? It all speaks of there being "none righteous, not even
one."
>
> >You can quip negatively all you want, but unless you can provide a
> >better explaination, you only come off as being quarrelsome.
>
> Well, if it isn't the pot calling the kettle black! You are living in a fool's
> paradise, Loren, if you think your own posts on this topic and in this thread
> come accross as anything other than 'quarrelsome'.
>
> You will not fool many with your double standard.
But as I continually protest, and as you continually exhibit here
again, you never provide a response other than negativism. If someone
debates your point, why should you get upset when you never disclose
your position? You have provided nothing to explain why my position
is wrong let alone provide an explaination of your postion. Who knows
what you believe beyond the Trinity?
hed...@geneva.rutgers.edu
wrote
>> Justification is a singular declaration by God based
>>not upon the work of man, but on the vicarious work of atonement
>>achieved by Christ.
>Even your fellow Reform advocate, the moderator, was not convinced
>when you made this claim. Why would I be?
My objection was to the way Loren was using regeneration, not
justification.
As I'm sure you have noted, Loren and I represent different branches
of the Reformed tradition. In a number of cases I disagree with
doctrines from later Reformed writers.
Now the question is whether I agree the justification is one time.
I guess so, although I think it's more complex than sometimes realized.
As usual, I'd like to avoid arguing over definitions of words.
Justification is used by the Reformers in a technical sense, based on
certain works by Paul. It is used otherwise by James.
In the early 16th Cent, there was neither consistent doctrine on these
issues nor an agreed upon vocabulary. See Pelikan's vol 4 for a good
account of the doctrinal disorder at the time. In that context I see
nothing wrong with the Reformers defining justification as they
did. The Catholic tradition ended up defining the term more broadly,
with other Scriptural examples for that use. When you understand the
way in which "faith" and "justification" are being used, you can see
why "justification by faith" means different things in the two
traditions.
I accept the conclusions of a couple of Catholic/Protestant working
groups that once you understand the terminology, there's a reaonable
amount of commonality to what's being said, although there are still
significant differences.
For Calvin, justification means our acceptance by God as righteous, on
account of the merits of Christ. If you prefer, God's decision to
redeem us by giving his Son. In both the NT and Protestant theology
this results in a situation characterized by a certain inconsistency.
We are God's children; we are destined for heaven, and are treated as
already part of his Kingdom. Yet we are still "of the flesh". We
do not always do what as God's people we want. It is this inconsistent
state that causes us to distinguish justification and sanctification.
Justification refers to the "now": our acceptance by God and our
membership in his Kingdom. Sanctification refers to the "not yet": our
continual battle with sin.
I actually see some ambiguity as to when justification happens.
Calvin typically says that God accepts us, and grafts us into
Christ. We receive this in faith, receiving both justification and
sanctification as a result. But this leaves us with some ambiguity: If
justification is our forgiveness and acceptance by God as his
children, then this occurs before even faith. We receive it in faith,
but it's already there.
So one could argue that justification occurs before the creation of
the world, when God has already determined to save us, or at the time
when Christ died for us.
However Paul speaks of being justified by faith, contrasting this to
justification by works (in context, works of the Law). This usage
suggests that he means justification as something that happens in our
lives.
I believe that at least in these passages he is thinking of
justification in forensic terms. That is, he is thinking of the point
when the verdict of innocent is published and becomes effective, not
of God's decisions in eternity, on which it is based. It's reasonable
to say that the verdict becomes effective when we receive it in faith.
However it's easy to become fixated on that one moment, leading to
lopsided theologies where all that matters in our lives is our
"decision for Christ." Among other problems, when our status as God's
children is seen as resting on our own faith, problems arise when our
faith is weak, or when we become disobedient children. In the
Protestant view, weakness of faith and disobedience don't affect our
status as children. However salvation is more than justification. It
also concerns the way in which the Holy Spirit works in us to help us
overcome sin. If we become tardy in this aspect, God remains our
Father, but he may become more a disciplinarian rather than "daddy."
We also need to think about the status of infants. Some modern
theologies effectively consider them innocent, and thus don't worry
about how they are justified. I don't agree. I think they have the
same need for grace as adults, although it comes to them in a
different form. For them justification can't be based on the same kind
of faith as in adults. For people who grow up in the Church, and don't
have any specific moment of conversion, 1 Cor 7:14 seems to accept
that they are justified from the beginning. (What else can it mean to
be regarded as clean?) If we regard justification as when God's
verdict for us becomes visibly effective, it might make sense to
locate it at baptism for them, although I'll probably get attacked by
my Protestant colleagues for that. (But see
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/rich_lusk/baptismal_efficacy_the_reformed_tradition_past_present_future.htm)
At any rate, there is a difference between justification and
sanctification. Sanctification occurs progressively, throughout our
lives. Justification does not. Justification is our status before God
as his children. What kind of children we are certainly changes. So
does the way he treats us. But the fact that he has accepted us as
children, and applied Christ's death to us does not. Thus
justification is a permanent status within which our development as
Christians (sanctification) occurs.
Loren
> http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/rich_lusk/baptismal_efficacy_the_reformed_tradition_past_present_future.htm)
>
That the WCF taught such things is nothing new. Each time I used the
Westminster Standards in my SS classes, I always noted which points
conservative evangelicals disagreed with, baptism being one of the
primary points.
I see no evidence of baptismal regeneration (BR) supported in the
scriptures. The very nature of justification disallows it. Are there
two distinct instrumental causes, faith & baptism? Do they have to
occur concurrently or merely consecutively?
Also, there is, once again, the issue concerning regeneration in light
of the depravity of man. How can it be said that a man can acquire
fiduciary faith if he has yet to have the enablement of regeneration
to seek after God? "Seek ye first" is a path that only the
regenerated can tread. As the great Morpheus stated, "There is a
fundamental difference between knowing a path and walking a path."
The doctrine of TD maintains that man cannot even know the path let
alone walk it.
Simply put, BR does not fit the biblical perimeters concerning
salvation being of faith, not of works.
Matthew Johnson
>
>In a posting last night Matthew Johnson <matthew...@newsguy.com>
>wrote
>
>>> Justification is a singular declaration by God based
>>>not upon the work of man, but on the vicarious work of atonement
>>>achieved by Christ.
>
>>Even your fellow Reform advocate, the moderator, was not convinced
>>when you made this claim. Why would I be?
>
>My objection was to the way Loren was using regeneration, not
>justification.
[snip]
>Now the question is whether I agree the justification is one time.
>I guess so, although I think it's more complex than sometimes realized.
You GUESS? Then you can't be sure. In that case, I was right to say that you
were not convinced. Also, do you see even a _hint_ of recognition of that
'complexity' in Loren's hyper-dogmatic assertions about it? I don't.
>As usual, I'd like to avoid arguing over definitions of words.
But sometimes, this really does mean you have to give up and walk away.
>Justification is used by the Reformers in a technical sense, based on
>certain works by Paul.
Based on a _misinterpretion_ of Paul would be more accurate.
> It is used otherwise by James.
What ARE you talking about? The word does not even _occur_ in James.
>In the early 16th Cent, there was neither consistent doctrine on these
>issues nor an agreed upon vocabulary.
And in that case, why would there be now? So how can we justify any claims that
"justification is a one-time event" if we can't even agree on what the term
MEANS?
> See Pelikan's vol 4 for a good
>account of the doctrinal disorder at the time.
I have seen it. Surely you didn't expect me to read the whole volume on _that_
period in Pelikan's series;)
> In that context I see
>nothing wrong with the Reformers defining justification as they
>did. The Catholic tradition ended up defining the term more broadly,
>with other Scriptural examples for that use. When you understand the
>way in which "faith" and "justification" are being used, you can see
>why "justification by faith" means different things in the two
>traditions.
>
>I accept the conclusions of a couple of Catholic/Protestant working
>groups that once you understand the terminology, there's a reaonable
>amount of commonality to what's being said, although there are still
>significant differences.
>
>For Calvin, justification means our acceptance by God as righteous, on
>account of the merits of Christ. If you prefer, God's decision to
>redeem us by giving his Son.
But WHY would these two even be the same?
> In both the NT and Protestant theology
>this results in a situation characterized by a certain inconsistency.
>We are God's children; we are destined for heaven, and are treated as
>already part of his Kingdom. Yet we are still "of the flesh". We
>do not always do what as God's people we want. It is this inconsistent
>state that causes us to distinguish justification and sanctification.
But this is a reckless approach to dealing with the "certain inconsistency". For
one must be very careful in dealing with any 'inconsistency'. Surely you know
the ancient Logic theorem proved by Aristotle, that once you allow one logically
contradictory statement to be either true or false, then you must allow any
contradictory statement to be both true and false.
>Justification refers to the "now": our acceptance by God and our
>membership in his Kingdom. Sanctification refers to the "not yet": our
>continual battle with sin.
Are you now talking about Calvin's opinion, the 16th century Calvinists, or the
working group?
>I actually see some ambiguity as to when justification happens.
>Calvin typically says that God accepts us, and grafts us into
>Christ. We receive this in faith, receiving both justification and
>sanctification as a result. But this leaves us with some ambiguity: If
>justification is our forgiveness and acceptance by God as his
>children, then this occurs before even faith. We receive it in faith,
>but it's already there.
That is one problem with the Calvinist system, yes...
>So one could argue that justification occurs before the creation of
>the world, when God has already determined to save us, or at the time
>when Christ died for us.
This confusion is what you get for rejecting or ignoring the 'rationales
seminales' that Augustine mentioned.
>However Paul speaks of being justified by faith, contrasting this to
>justification by works (in context, works of the Law).
Ah, how refreshing it is to see that _somebody_ understands that 'works' here
means 'works of the Law'!
> This usage
>suggests that he means justification as something that happens in our
>lives.
Absolutely.
>I believe that at least in these passages he is thinking of
>justification in forensic terms.
Strange. I would have thought that it was the sense you discussed _earlier_ that
you would have insisted by 'forensic'.
> That is, he is thinking of the point
>when the verdict of innocent is published and becomes effective, not
>of God's decisions in eternity, on which it is based. It's reasonable
>to say that the verdict becomes effective when we receive it in faith.
>
>However it's easy to become fixated on that one moment, leading to
>lopsided theologies where all that matters in our lives is our
>"decision for Christ."
This is only ONE of the "lopsided theologies" that can come out of such
'fixation'.
[snip]
Matthew Johnson
>
>Matthew Johnson <matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:<_EP_c.1299$Gi5.573@trndny05>...
>>
>> > For in 5:1, "peace" is in the present.
>>
>> No, that is simply not so. I say, with Chrysostom, that it is present
>> _subjunctive_; but for your claimed "peace is in the present", it must be
>> present _indicative_. Without that, your whole argument falls apart like
>> a house of cards.
>Manuscripts, A, C. D. 17, 18, 19, 22, 24, 34, 37, 42, 44, 46, 55, 66,
>in the Syriac, Coptic and Vulgate versions, as read by several of the
>patristic writers, do so interpret 5:1, reading "let us have peace"
>instead of "we have peace."
And notice that those witnesses are geographically widespread; some of them are
quite early, too.
> However, the common reading is "we have."
What do you mean 'common reading'? That term, "common reading" has NO weight
whatsoever.
> It is this reading which best fits the context.
This is your circular reasoning. You have decided what the 'context' is by
making it fit your choice of reading.
> The Pauline contention is that peace is the result of justification by faith.
Not if the Syriac and Coptic of Rom 5:1 are correct!
> The previous chapters illustrate the fact that the man who relies on his
>own work for justification, can have no peace.
You miss the point. Those chapters _are_ about what the man who relies on
himself does not have. 'Peace' is a contentious choice of term for that.
[snip]
>The whole tenor of the Pauline crescendo is that the
>justified believer has peace, through the work of Christ which has
>been imputed unto him.
>
>Rom. 5:1 Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with
>God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
Here you go with your circular reasoning again. No, it reads:
>Rom. 5:1 Therefore having been justified by faith, let us have peace with
>God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
>Eph. 2:13-14 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off
>have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our
>peace, who made both {groups into} one, and broke down the barrier of
>the dividing wall,
Notice the word 'peace' does not occur there? Yes the wall is broken down, but
that only makes peace _possible_, it does not _force_ it.
>Col. 1:20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having
>made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, {I say},
>whether things on earth or things in heaven.
And the mention of "all things" and "on earth" or "in heaven" should have been
the hint: he is talking about the reconciliation at the end of time. It has not
happened yet.
>That peace is a present condition in Rom 5:1 is supported directly by
>what he contents elsewhere as well. It is because it is a work of the
>Godhead based upon the vicarious atonement of the 2nd Person, that
>peace is achieved objectively by God alone. The great subject of
>divine reconciliation lies in and depends upon, the doctrine of the
>Trinity.
Which doctrine you also severely misunderstand, despite your advocacy of it. We
have been over this before.
[snip]
>Sorry, but the tenor of the Pauline theological argument of Romans is
>that "There is NOW therefore, no condemnation" for the justified
But this is not what he said either! He said:
There is therefore now no condemnation for those
who are in Christ Jesus, WHO DO NOT WALK
ACCORDING TO THE FLESH (Rom 8:1 RSVA)
Again: the manuscript support for this reading is widespread and includes some
very early witnesses.
>therefore the believers position is not only one of securing peace but
>securing security, i.e. OSAS. Because, "For from Him and through Him
>and to Him are all things. To Him {be} the glory forever. Amen."
This is a very confused argument. The 'security' is offered to those who
persevere to the end.
[snip]
Matthew Johnson
>
>>
>> >That "all sinned" indicates that "there are none who does good."
>>
>>We have been over this before. Again, look at the original context: St. Paul was
>> NOT talking about all mankind, not even all unregenerate mankind.
>>
How can you write such a deceptive, impertinent question and forget to end it
with a question mark?
Of _course_ I read Romans. I have read the entire epistle many times. It is not
_I_ who "do not understand the logical flow of Paul's argument". It is you.
>Paul, ex-Pharisee, certainly condemns all men, from Adam to present, as
>being "without excuse."
So you love to repeat. But he did not condemn Noah or Enoch, just as the OT
passages he quotes did not. How many times do I have to tell you? Pay attention
to the original context of Paul's OT quotes. And remember also what Paul himself
said:
Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those
who are under the law ... (Rom 3:19 RSVA)
So that 'all' even the latter half of that verse can mean only those under the
Law.
Then "whole world" refers to Jew and Gentiles as a group, not to each and every
individual in both groups; just as not every Jew robbed temples, not every Greek
committed sins against nature.
>Rom 1:18ff is the condemnation of the Gentile
>nations. Rom 2, condemnation of the Jew who thought both his
>birthright and his religious good works placed him in a favorable
>position before God. In Rom 3 Paul combines both groups and concludes
>that "Jews and Greeks are all under sin."
Yet Enoch was translated to heaven, and Job was called righteous by none less
than God Himself.
>And if that were not enough, then in 3:10ff he completes the picture
>of total depravity of mankind before the bar of a thrice holy God.
>
>In Rom 3:22 "all those who believe" is as inclusive as "all sinned" in
>the following verse.
But 'believe' in which of this verbs many senses? This is the question you
refuse to answer. Instead, you insist on pretending that the verb has only one
meaning.
>The negations with 3:10ff are not qualified.
What _are_ you talking about? They are qualified by Rom 3:19.
>They are all inclusive.
Only of those UNDER THE LAW.
>> >Man
>> >cannot generate even a correct opinion of God apart from first have
>> >God move toward man and regenerate his mind, emotions and will.
>>
>>And what, then, are we to think of those who _claim_ to have this regeneration,
>> yet _still_ generate only incorrect opinions of God by denying free will?
>>
>Again, I don't care what you say,
I can tell. Worse yet, you don't even care what Scripture says -- despite your
pretense.
>you do not grasp the distinction being made.
No, I do 'grasp' it, I reject _your_ false interpretation of it.
>Tell me this, if we take your argument to frutition, who
>didn't Christ die for if it is said He died for "all?"
That's not _my_ argument you "take to fruition" by reaching _that_ conclusion.
>What are the alternatives?
I have answered this for you before. What a short memory you have!
>That man CAN, in and of himself, pull up his religious
>boot straps and justify himself before God?
Why must you continually put the words of Pelagius in other people's mouths? It
is because you choose to imitate that vile witch-hunter, Prosper of Aquitaine,
instead of imitating Christ?
>Man cannot do this even
>with the Romish doctrine of "infusion", as their later doctrine of
>purgatory attests. Did not Adam's first son fully illustrate the fall
>of the race?
No. For Enoch was also a descendant of Adam, and had NONE of that.
>Did not the flood illustrate total depravity?
No. It would have "illustrated total depravity" only if Noah had been left
outside the Ark too. But his entire family was saved instead.
>What of Babel?
What _of_ it?
>What of the release of Satan after the 1000 yr reign of Christ
>on the earth? It all speaks of there being "none righteous, not even
>one."
Only in your imagination.
>> >You can quip negatively all you want, but unless you can provide a
>> >better explaination, you only come off as being quarrelsome.
>>
>> Well, if it isn't the pot calling the kettle black! You are living in
>> a fool's paradise, Loren, if you think your own posts on this topic
>> and in this thread
>> come across as anything other than 'quarrelsome'.
>>
>> You will not fool many with your double standard.
>But as I continually protest, and as you continually exhibit here
>again, you never provide a response other than negativism.
But your 'continual protests' are simply wrong. Why, you have even admitted that
your argumentative behavior is motivated by envy. Not to mention your 'protests'
are no less 'negative'.
>If someone
>debates your point, why should you get upset when you never disclose
>your position?
Because this isn't true. I _do_ disclose my position. I just don't do it on
_your_ schedule.
Newsflash! There is no obligation or moral imperative to do it on _your_
schedule.
And _honest_ debate does not get me upset. But your habit of intellectual
dishonesty is so deeply ingrained, I doubt you even realize how deeply dishonest
your entire approach to debate really is.
Tell you what: if you will genuinely DROP that intellecual dishonesty, then I
will accomodate your desire that I disclose my position on _your_ schedule. But
you will have to convince me that you have really dropped it, and that will take
more work than you are likely to accept.
>You have provided nothing to explain why my position
>is wrong let alone provide an explaination of your postion.
That's not true. I have provided it, and often. But you ignored it or responded
with irrelevant bombast, as you so often do. Why, look at how far you dragged
this thread off topic with your rash agreement that "sentient beings do not will
to evil" in msg-id L5WRc.9804$BO....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net , which you then
_rationalized_ with all your habitual nonsense about 'inclination'.
Speaking of 'inclination', this is a good example of your dishonesty: for when I
pointed out the equivocation of your arguments concerning 'inclination', warning
you that you are confusing _distinct_ senses of the word, you responded with an
irrelevant example, claiming that the existence of multiple words for one
concept justified your claim.
But it does not. For _your_ example really was essentially different, all the
words being synonyms. But 'inclination' is idfferent; there really _are_ several
distinct meanings to this word. Yet you refuse to recognize this in your
thinking about 'inclination' because you are blindly enslaved to Edwards on this
topic.
>Who knows what you believe beyond the Trinity?
Lots of people do. You don't, because you don't read and think before you click
'send'. The only thing you are willing to 'think' about is how to find an excuse
to climb back up on your soapbox and spout bombastic hyper-dogmatic prattle.
Rather than imitate Christ, you imitate that fourth-grader I knew who always
shot up his hand to be first with an answer -- even if it was wrong.
Loren
> wrote
>
> >> Justification is a singular declaration by God based
> >>not upon the work of man, but on the vicarious work of atonement
> >>achieved by Christ.
>
> >Even your fellow Reform advocate, the moderator, was not convinced
> >when you made this claim. Why would I be?
>
> My objection was to the way Loren was using regeneration, not
> justification.
>
>
> Now the question is whether I agree the justification is one time.
> I guess so, although I think it's more complex than sometimes realized.
>
Sproul in one of his lectures on justification, mentions the day that
his 8 yr old daughter was saved. Apparently in the PC he attended, it
was customary to offer an altar call at least once a year. His
daughter, who apparently was not seated with him at the time, marched
past him and up to the altar to give her life to Christ. RC spoke of
his deep concern because of her youth. Her naivet he worried would
only complicate matters when she got old enough to make a real
confession of faith. After church, he asked her about what she was
feeling. She answered him that she "felt clean all over." The child
can certainly understand experientially and simply.
Yet, as adults, especially we theologians who study the history of the
doctrine, the various models and their intricacies (infusion vs
imputation), the West's primarily legalistic definition versus the
East's silence (as to specificity) on justification by faith (other
than to explain it in terms of deification), all speak of the fact
that there are many facets to the doctrine.
>
> As usual, I'd like to avoid arguing over definitions of words.
> Justification is used by the Reformers in a technical sense, based on
> certain works by Paul. It is used otherwise by James.
>
But it is certainly more than this. It also involves the Hebraic
concept and words (htsdyq) as well. When speaking properly of, the
verb "to justify" is always used in a forensic manner (Ex 23:7, Prov.
17:15) as justification always terminates in God (Ps 51:4).
>
> In the early 16th Cent, there was neither consistent doctrine on these
> issues nor an agreed upon vocabulary. See Pelikan's vol 4 for a good
> account of the doctrinal disorder at the time.
>
But this is normal doctrinal development. By the 17th C, it was well
defined in a very substantial way by the likes of Turretin, who's
specificity and degree of legal logic far exceeded even Calvin's.
>
> In that context I see
> nothing wrong with the Reformers defining justification as they
> did.
>
I agree but would also (grab hold of your chair Matthew), it think the
East compliments the West in their personalization of the doctrine.
The Reformed West is not wrong, it is absolutely right in orienting
itself from a judicial vantage. However, it seems to me that in doing
so, especially when having to confront the classical Romanist
interpretation of "in" as opposed to "for," the doctrine becomes so
defined that it forgets the Persons of the Trinity and each of Their
specific ministries and involvement. I think the East either falters
or out right fails to correctly define the doctrine by their all
evasive presupposition of theosis. In their quest for true exegesis
to gain the mystical perspective of the hidden meaning of the
Scriptures which lie beyond or beneath the literal words of a
particular passage, they minimize the propositional truth which God
intended.
>
SNIP
>
> I accept the conclusions of a couple of Catholic/Protestant working
> groups that once you understand the terminology, there's a reaonable
> amount of commonality to what's being said, although there are still
> significant differences.
>
Such as "Evangelicals and Catholics Together?" (ETC) As I have grown
more familiar with some of the issues and some of the conclusions,
frankly, I cannot marry your profession of standing closer to
classical Reformed positions (as opposed to modern) and this
acceptance of, say the conclusions of the ETC. When such coalitions
necessarily minimize classic Reformed doctrines such as sola fide,
then I become worried. The two systems are diametrically opposed.
They are nothing less than the Pauline conclusion of Gal 1. One is
the true gospel and the other is no gospel at all, in point of fact,
it is anathema. Luther was not wrong, he was absolutely right to
conclude that it is the "article upon which the church stands or
falls."
>
> For Calvin, justification means our acceptance by God as righteous, on
> account of the merits of Christ.
>
SRC is a theological NG, is it not? Specificity is called for in the
extreme. "Means" is sloppy English. I hate to be a stickler, I
really do Charles, but we are at a point where words must be used in a
very precise manner. In his lectures concerning philosophical
thinking. Sproul somewhere points out that too often is the case,
especially in Evangelical theological circles (he loves to get his
digs into Evangelicals, esp dispensationalist) that those who are
discussing theological matters tend toward the comfort zone of
linguistic ambiguity rather than intellectual precision.
pi bene distinquit, bene docet (Who distinquishes well, teaches well)
>
> If you prefer, God's decision to
> redeem us by giving his Son. In both the NT and Protestant theology
> this results in a situation characterized by a certain inconsistency.
> We are God's children; we are destined for heaven, and are treated as
> already part of his Kingdom. Yet we are still "of the flesh". We
> do not always do what as God's people we want. It is this inconsistent
> state that causes us to distinguish justification and sanctification.
>
i.e. Luther's "simul justus et pecator" or "at the same time, sinner
and saint." It is not inconsistent when one recognizes the
distinction between standing and state, practice and position, "chosen
before the foundation of the world" and "to whosoever wills." The
confuse lies a poor comprehension of what "for" means as opposed to
"in."
>
> Justification refers to the "now": our acceptance by God and our
> membership in his Kingdom. Sanctification refers to the "not yet": our
> continual battle with sin.
>
> I actually see some ambiguity as to when justification happens.
>
Why? It is fairly logical in its chronology. The more I have
pondered this "ambiguity," the more I recognize that there has to be
procedure. The difficulty lies in remaining steadfast in vantage. If
we wobble back and forth from God's action and man's, then confusion
is certain. From the vantage of God being regulated by His holiness,
justice requires that sin be dealt with. Thus, justification must
proceed the grace of regeneration. As you later note, in point of
fact, the believer is really saved prior to either "true knowledge"
(Heb 6:4; 2 Pet 1:3), accent to that knowledge let alone to fiduciary
faith. So really, from the divine perspective it is 1) calling, 2)
justifying (involving both the imputation of Christ's righteousness
and the imputation of the sinners sin), 3) regeneration, 4)
enlightenment, 5) the gift of faith.
>
> Calvin typically says that God accepts us, and grafts us into
> Christ. We receive this in faith, receiving both justification and
> sanctification as a result. But this leaves us with some ambiguity: If
> justification is our forgiveness and acceptance by God as his
> children, then this occurs before even faith. We receive it in faith,
> but it's already there.
>
> So one could argue that justification occurs before the creation of
> the world, when God has already determined to save us, or at the time
> when Christ died for us.
>
As Christ was "slain before the foundation of the world." Here again,
if we are strict in our discernment, God, being outside of time, we
can legally say that there never was a "time" when we weren't
justified. However, the Incarnation does add dimension to the topic.
But lets not go there now.
>
> However Paul speaks of being justified by faith, contrasting this to
> justification by works (in context, works of the Law). This usage
> suggests that he means justification as something that happens in our
> lives.
>
And here is where I think you fail to remain consistent to distinguish
between analytical justification and synthetic justification. The
Reformed view is the later. Again, to refer back to the classic
Reform verbiage, extra nos. Justification does NOT happen "in" us.
That is the Romanist position, technically speaking, though their
application of such a methodology is certainly unrelated to yours.
This is why the classical Reformed statements so ardently maintain
"forensic" justification under the distinction of it being synthetic,
for in a manner of speaking, even the Roman model is quasi forensic.
Strictly speaking, is not something which "happens in our lives" but
something which is removed from our lives. Guilt and enmity is
removed -once and for all. (Do not confuse true moral guilt with
psychological guilt)
>
> I believe that at least in these passages he is thinking of
> justification in forensic terms.
>
In all scriptural passage, when speaking specific to justification
proper, it is forensic. Not only that, but it is viewed as something
accomplished only by God and that being a past occurance to the
believer at the time of salviific faith. It is once and for all for
it is the legal declaration of God. It has no direct relationship
with a moral process. Justification must not be confused with
sanctification.
>
>That is, he is thinking of the point
> when the verdict of innocent is published and becomes effective, not
> of God's decisions in eternity, on which it is based. It's reasonable
> to say that the verdict becomes effective when we receive it in faith.
>
No. And the reason this cannot be is that justice must first be
served and even removed from the arena before grace can be given.
Holiness simply will have it no other way. The only "effect" of
justification is that a holy God may now be at peace with the
justified. Having the obstacle sin removed, God may then regenerate
the elect and begin to bring the individual to saving faith.
>
> However it's easy to become fixated on that one moment, leading to
> lopsided theologies where all that matters in our lives is our
> "decision for Christ." Among other problems, when our status as God's
> children is seen as resting on our own faith, problems arise when our
> faith is weak, or when we become disobedient children.
>
Charles! Here is where the Reformed position is so misunderstood and
where its ministers have so utterly failed. The dilemma you pose
above is rooted in the reality of reducing faith to a thinly veiled
"work." Justification never rests upon our acceptance. "Who has
first given that it must be repaid?" If Paul's conclusion, "It is all
from Him, through Him and to Him," be adhered to, then salvation in
general, justification in specific, does not rely upon the individual.
"For we are His craftsmanship." Fiducial faith is only the tool by
which the individual places his "weight" upon the actuality. This is
easily illustrated.
You live in New York and you need to be in Seattle. You've never
flown before but have on occasion seen shiny objects in the sky. You
go to the library and check out a book on aeronautics and study its
theory of thrust, lift and drag. You drive out to the airport and you
watch one plane after another take off and land. Yes, these
monstrosities do conform to the laws of the physical universe and yes,
they do, indeed, rise from the earth. You rationally accept all the
data and you even place your faith in the fact that one can fly from
NY to Seattle. But the question is, is that "saving" faith? The
Reformed answer is, NO! The Reformed position is that not until one
purchases a ticket and actually sits down in the seat, does one
"realize" salvation. One does not "rest in faith" for faith is in
fact, resting (placing one's weight upon). Justification does not
"rest" on one's faith. It rests upon alien acts of the Godhead.
>
>In the
> Protestant view, weakness of faith and disobedience don't affect our
> status as children. However salvation is more than justification. It
> also concerns the way in which the Holy Spirit works in us to help us
> overcome sin. If we become tardy in this aspect, God remains our
> Father, but he may become more a disciplinarian rather than "daddy."
>
> We also need to think about the status of infants. Some modern
> theologies effectively consider them innocent, and thus don't worry
> about how they are justified. I don't agree.
>
Neither do I. The doctrine of total depravity denies it.
>
> I think they have the
> same need for grace as adults, although it comes to them in a
> different form. For them justification can't be based on the same kind
> of faith as in adults.
>
Justification is NEVER "based" upon faith. It is based upon the work
of Christ. That is the basis of our justification. The Christian
gospel is what God did for me, not what I did to gain some supposed
merit.
Infants die in their sin. Either you believe the totality of
depravity or you don't. However, it remains a mystery as to the work
of God as regarding infants and even those adults who never achieve
rationality. In that justification is a work of God, not reliant upon
the individual, He most certainly has at His disposal, Christ's
atoning work.
>
>For people who grow up in the Church, and don't
> have any specific moment of conversion, 1 Cor 7:14 seems to accept
> that they are justified from the beginning.
>
I think your arguement would be better severed if you rephrased "for
people" to read, "the elect." This would rule out those who are,
"Depart from Me. I never knew you."
>
> (What else can it mean to
> be regarded as clean?) If we regard justification as when God's
> verdict for us becomes visibly effective, it might make sense to
> locate it at baptism for them, although I'll probably get attacked by
> my Protestant colleagues for that.
>
Again, I don't understand how you can at one point say you adhere to
the classical Reformationist while submitting proposals totally alien
to them. You seem to have grouped me in with modernist by your
misunderstanding Shedd's position, and yet it is I who see you being
the modernist by your acceptance of consortiums such as ECT, alluding
to justification as having something to do "in us," justification
being based on faith, and now this mention of baptism. I feel like
I'm in some past VP debate and saying, "I new John Kennedy and you're
no John Kennedy." (and to come to find out, he had never actually met
JFK!). Even my being primarily a "Baptist" seem to be able to say to
you, "I know classical Reformed theology, and you are no adherent to
it."
Nothing is "effective" at the moment of water baptism (let's not be
vague and confuse that with Spiritual baptism) other than a
self-determination to exhibit your internal identification with
Christ. Do not confuse cause and effect.
>
>(But see
> http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/rich_lusk/baptismal_efficacy_the_reformed_tradition_past_present_future.htm)
>
haven't look at this yet, but will tomorrow.
>
> At any rate, there is a difference between justification and
> sanctification. Sanctification occurs progressively, throughout our
> lives. Justification does not. Justification is our status before God
> as his children. What kind of children we are certainly changes. So
> does the way he treats us. But the fact that he has accepted us as
> children, and applied Christ's death to us does not. Thus
> justification is a permanent status within which our development as
> Christians (sanctification) occurs.
>
i.e. Once saved, always saved. "Who can separate us from the love of
Christ?"
If I separate this last paragraph from everything you have written
prior to it, I would think you to be a classical reformist. But the
more you detail your pondering, the more I question that, especially
when you remain in PCUSA as opposed to Reformed PC.
This post was very interesting. Through nearly two decades of NG
correspondence, I have long thought of myself being the conservative
and you the modernist. Little in this post leads me to think I'm
wrong in such an analysis.
I'd really like to hear your thoughts on this.
hed...@geneva.rutgers.edu
preceding posting.
>An under statement in one sense, an over statement in an other. RC
>Sproul in one of his lectures on justification, mentions the day that
>his 8 yr old daughter was saved.
I would say that something happened to Sproul's daughter. I'm not sure
"was saved" would be it. Among other things, that ignores the fact
that for Calvin "salvation" includes both justification and
sanctification. I would be willing to say that she experienced
justification. Whether that is the actual beginning of her
justification only God can say.
>> As usual, I'd like to avoid arguing over definitions of words.
>> Justification is used by the Reformers in a technical sense, based on
>> certain works by Paul. It is used otherwise by James.
>
>But it is certainly more than this. It also involves the Hebraic
>concept and words (htsdyq) as well. When speaking properly of, the
>verb "to justify" is always used in a forensic manner (Ex 23:7, Prov.
>17:15) as justification always terminates in God (Ps 51:4).
I can't comment on Hebrew. Sorry. In the NT I would say that
justification can most commonly be seen as you say, but James seems to
be an exception, as is Lk 10:29 and 16:14. However I would classify Lk
18:14 as forensic. As I said originally, they took a word which has
several meanings, and gave it a technical definition. That doesn't
mean I think the technical definition is wrong. I think there is a
good basis for it in the way the word is commonly used in the NT.
>Such as "Evangelicals and Catholics Together?" (ETC) As I have grown
>more familiar with some of the issues and some of the conclusions,
>frankly, I cannot marry your profession of standing closer to
>classical Reformed positions (as opposed to modern) and this
>acceptance of, say the conclusions of the ETC. When such coalitions
>necessarily minimize classic Reformed doctrines such as sola fide,
>then I become worried. The two systems are diametrically opposed.
I do not suggest minimizing classic Reformed doctrines. However people
in the Reformed tradition often accuse Catholics of things that simply
aren't true. Even those who oppose ECT realize that the Catholic
position isn't really Pelagian. There are many things on which
Catholics and Protestants agree, including the necessity for grace.
However the way they conceive of grace is different, and that
difference has significant practical consequences.
(Incidentally, the real reference should probably be to the joint
Catholic/Lutheran paper on justification. ECT primarily calls for
joint political action in areas where there is agreement.)
>SRC is a theological NG, is it not? Specificity is called for in the
>extreme. "Means" is sloppy English. I hate to be a stickler, I
>really do Charles, but we are at a point where words must be used in a
>very precise manner. In his lectures concerning philosophical
I'm not sure why you think "means" in "Justification means our
acceptance by God as righteous on account of the merits of Christ" is
sloppy.
Thus we simply interpret justification, as the acceptance with which
God receives us into his favor as if we were righteous; and we say
that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the
imputation of the righteousness of Christ (see sec. 21 and 23).
Institutes 3.11.2
For Paul certainly designates justification by the term acceptance,
when he says to the Ephesians
Institutes 3.11.4
Calvin does often say that justification means God's acceptance of us.
>Reform verbiage, extra nos. Justification does NOT happen "in" us.
>That is the Romanist position, technically speaking, though their
>application of such a methodology is certainly unrelated to yours.
Right. That's not what I meant.
>>That is, he is thinking of the point
>> when the verdict of innocent is published and becomes effective, not
>> of God's decisions in eternity, on which it is based. It's reasonable
>> to say that the verdict becomes effective when we receive it in faith.
>>
>No. And the reason this cannot be is that justice must first be
>served and even removed from the arena before grace can be given.
>Holiness simply will have it no other way. The only "effect" of
>justification is that a holy God may now be at peace with the
>justified. Having the obstacle sin removed, God may then regenerate
>the elect and begin to bring the individual to saving faith.
Perhaps saying that the decree becomes effective was a mistake. Let
me try to be more precise.
According to the forensic model, justification is the rendering of a
verdict of innocent because the righteousness of Christ has been
imputed to us. If you stop there, no faith is needed. Because Calvin's
definition of justification emphasizes God's acceptance, it could be
taken in that way. That's the ambiguity I mentioned.
However justification is said to be by faith because the whole action
isn't finished until we receive it in faith. That doesn't mean that
God's verdict depends upon our faith. However the whole process of
justification, as used by the Reformers, is more than just a verdict.
This is why justification isn't just a legal fiction.
According to Pelikan, there was a late medieval view that "located the
forgiveness of sins and justification in a sheer act of divine
imputation. In opposition to this [Luther] stressed that "against this
horrible, terrible interpretation and error, the holy apostle has the
practice that he always connects faith to Jesus Christ." ... faith was
the divinely created ability to appropriate the promise of grace in
Christ." [Pelikan, Reformation of Church and Dogma, p 154]
Christ's righteousness is actually active in us (though it always
remains "alien") through what Calvin calls the "fellowship of
righteousness." [Inst 3.11.10] Until that fellowship exists,
justification in the full sense isn't finished. I would say that it is
our dependence on Christ's righteousness in faith that sets up the
"fellowship." For the Reformers, faith isn't our own work, but
something that is created in us by the Holy Spirit.
See WCF 11:
2. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is
the alone instrument of justification...
4. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and
Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise
again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified,
until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto
them.
I understand 2 as meaing that the Holy Spirit applies Christ to us
through our faith.
>Infants die in their sin. Either you believe the totality of
>depravity or you don't. However, it remains a mystery as to the work
>of God as regarding infants and even those adults who never achieve
>rationality. In that justification is a work of God, not reliant upon
>the individual, He most certainly has at His disposal, Christ's
>atoning work.
Saying that justification for infants occurs at baptism may be
muddled. In fact I think the answer is that we don't know how
justification occurs for them. Calvin says that infants are baptized
"for future repentance and faith," the seed of which lies in them
(presumably only if they are elect) "by the secret operation of the
Holy Spirit" [4.16.20] because they are engrafted into Christ. As far
as I can tell, he doesn't actually answer whether they are justified.
If you regard justification as being the creation of the "fellowship
of righteousness" with Christ, then the thrust of Calvin's discussion
about infants would probably be to say that because they aren't
capable of faith in the adult sense, this is done by the "secret
operation of the Holy Spirit," which however grows into faith over
time.
Pastor Frank
news:1o80d.9315$PK3.7494@trnddc08...news:<swQ%c.174$Sb.79@trnddc06>...
> > >
> > >That "all sinned" indicates that "there are none who does good."
> >
> > We have been over this before. Again, look at the original context: St.
Paul was
> > NOT talking about all mankind, not even all unregenerate mankind.
>
> ex-Pharisee, certainly condemns all men, from Adam to present, as
> nations. Rom 2, condemnation of the Jew who thought both his
> birthright and his religious good works placed him in a favorable
> position before God. In Rom 3 Paul combines both groups and concludes
> that "Jews and Greeks are all under sin."
> of total depravity of mankind before the bar of a thrice holy God.
> In Rom 3:22 "all those who believe" is as inclusive as "all sinned" in
> They are all inclusive.
> >
> > >Man
> > >cannot generate even a correct opinion of God apart from first have
> > >God move toward man and regenerate his mind, emotions and will.
> >
> > And what, then, are we to think of those who _claim_ to have this
regeneration,
> > yet _still_ generate only incorrect opinions of God by denying free
will?
>
> being made. Tell me this, if we take your argument to frutition, who
> didn't Christ die for if it is said He died for "all?" What are the
> alternatives? That man CAN, in and of himself, pull up his religious
> boot straps and justify himself before God? Man cannot do this even
> with the Romish doctrine of "infusion", as their later doctrine of
> purgatory attests. Did not Adam's first son fully illustrate the fall
> Babel? What of the release of Satan after the 1000 yr reign of Christ
> on the earth? It all speaks of there being "none righteous, not even
> one."
>
> > >better explaination, you only come off as being quarrelsome.
> >
> > Well, if it isn't the pot calling the kettle black! You are living in a
fool's
> > paradise, Loren, if you think your own posts on this topic and in this
thread
> > come accross as anything other than 'quarrelsome'.
> >
> > You will not fool many with your double standard.
>
> debates your point, why should you get upset when you never disclose
> is wrong let alone provide an explaination of your postion. Who knows
> what you believe beyond the Trinity?
>
go to heaven, AND the reprobates who go to hell, knowingly and on purpose
for "His own pleasure". Christ dies only for the elect, hence "selective
atonement", and everything is predetermined and neither elect nor reprobate
can change from one to the other.
Where "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) the whole Calvinist theology is most
repulsive and devoid of love. How can anyone love a God who creates
reprobates for His own pleasure? We who love Christ are blessed to know,
that Christ did not come for the elect, nor for the good, nor for even for
the paragons of virtue, but Christ came solely for the lost, the reprobates,
that he might save them that are lost and bring them to repentance and heal
them. We know, that heaven is solely occupied by such repentant sinners and
none other.
Pastor Frank
THE DOCTRINE OF FREE WILL
Jesus in Luke 19:10: For the Son of Man has come to seek and save
that which is lost. (meaning reprobates, not the elect!!!!!!)
Jesus in Mk:2:17: When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are
whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to
call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (again not the elect!!!!)
Jesus in Luke 15:7: I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven
over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons,
which need no repentance.
Jesus in Mt:7:7-8 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall
find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh
receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be
opened.
Jesus in Mt:10:22: And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake:
but he that endureth to the end SHALL be saved.
Jn:1:9: That was the true Light, which lighteth EVERY man that cometh
into the world. (not only the elect)
Romans 10:13: For Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord WILL be
saved.
I Tim 2:3: For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our
Saviour; Who will have ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the
knowledge of the truth. (again, NOT just the elect, but all)
2Pt:3:9: The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that ALL
should come to repentance. (God creates none reprobate)
Act 2:21; And it shall come to pass that WHOSOEVER shall call on the
name of the Lord shall be saved. (Not just the elect, but whoever)
Rom 10:9-10; that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and
believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you SHALL be
saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in right-eousness, and
with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. (He speaks of mankind
here, not just the elect)
Rev 3:20: Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My
voice and opens the door, I will come in to him, and will dine with him, and
he with Me. (Anyone does not mean *just the elect*)
Rev 22:17: And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that
heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And WHOSOEVER will,
let him take the water of life freely. (again: Not just the elect)
------------------
To sum up the Doctrine of Election, we may say, that The Elect of God
are the "whosoever will" class, who CHOSE to come and take the water of life
freely. And the non-elect or reprobates are the "whosoever will not" class
who CHOSE to reject the Gospel.
-God's Plan For Man, Finis Jennings Dake, Pg 620
Loren
> >
> Yours is the typical Calvinist position, where God creates the elect who
> go to heaven, AND the reprobates who go to hell, knowingly and on purpose
> for "His own pleasure". Christ dies only for the elect, hence "selective
> atonement", and everything is predetermined and neither elect nor reprobate
> can change from one to the other.
>
Perhaps you are new to this NG, but I am not a "typical Calvinist."
I'm a dispensationalist who sees great biblical support for much, if
not most, of the Reformed position, such as the Westminister
Standards.
You are unfair in stating that Calvinist teach that reprobation has
anything to do with election. All are reprobate. ALL fall short of
the glory of God. ALL sinned, whether you qualify that as to
inherited Adamic nature or that everyone sins of their own accord or
some admixture. Calvinisms fundamental doctrine is Grace. All, of
their own accord are headed to "hell." But by the grace of God,
because of man's inability, rescued some.
"Selective atonement" defames the death of Christ. Christ died for
all men. All men will have to give an answer to why they did or did
not accept that which was done for them. I am hold to limited
atonement which is defined such that Christ's death was adequate for
all men to be brought to righteous salvation, but that some choose not
to, it is limited in application, not availability.
>
> Where "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) the whole Calvinist theology is most
> repulsive and devoid of love.
>
Actually, we correctly interprete this sentence because the Greek
syntax will not allow for it to be rearranged to read, "Love is God."
God is not governed by love. Love is governed by holiness. The
justice of a holy God must first be met before the love of God can be
acted.
I bet you do not live consistant to the principle you infer above.
I'll bet that when an injustice occurs, you do not say, "Oh, that's
alright. Let it go." When your favorite sports team loses because of
an unjust call, you probably hoop and holler and make a big stink
about it. Yet you think it unfair if God judges "he who does not
believe" because he is incapable of believing because "no man seeketh
after God". Preference and principle are not one and the same. Sure,
every one's preference is that all make it to heaven, but the guiding
principle of the offended holiness of an infinite God can not wink at
sin.
>
> How can anyone love a God who creates reprobates for His own pleasure?
>
Playing loosy goosy with the scriptures aren't we. "I take no
pleasure in the death of the wicked." God didn't create a reprobate.
He created a inocent being who's only orientation was to holiness.
But like the staircases in "Harry Potter," the inclination of the will
shifted from one door to another and now the original door is no
longer available to man. Man, after the fall, is only inclined toward
the "broad path to destruction." Perhaps it would serve you better if
you would take some time to study the reformed position as it really
is, not as you perceive it.
>
> We who love Christ are blessed to know,
> that Christ did not come for the elect, nor for the good, nor for even for
> the paragons of virtue, but Christ came solely for the lost, the reprobates,
> that he might save them that are lost and bring them to repentance and heal
> them. We know, that heaven is solely occupied by such repentant sinners and
> none other.
>
You think the Calvinistic interpretation of election doesn't agree
with this? Really! Hmmm. Yet you state that it is Christ who
"brings them to repentance." Then obviously you agree that it is a
work of God, not a work of man. Yet undoubtly you are Arminian and
therefore nothing short of what modernist term, a humanist.
Arminianism is inconsent with itself and with the God of the bible.
>
> Pastor Frank
>
> THE DOCTRINE OF FREE WILL
> Jesus in Luke 19:10: For the Son of Man has come to seek and save
> that which is lost. (meaning reprobates, not the elect!!!!!!)
>
"All sinned", yet later Paul adds, "it does not depend on the man who
wills, or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy". And just prior
to that he quotes the OT, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy."
All men are lost. All men are reprobate. But some are "chosen" while
others are not. Chosing a direct action of God. There is no direct
action in not choosing others as Arminianism fails to note. All men
are headed to hell. It is only by mercy that some are saved. Your
contention above makes no sense and does not reveal understanding of
the Reformed position.
> Jesus in Mk:2:17:
> Jesus in Luke 15:7:
> Jesus in Mt:7:7-8
> Jesus in Mt:10:22:.
> Jn:1:9:
>
All of these fall into the same catagory as Luke 19:10.
>
> Romans 10:13: For Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord WILL be
> saved.
>
Ah, but we must first go back and understand the basics of salvation
which Paul details in the first 8 chapters of Romans. How can anyone
"will" to call upon the name if, 1) they are "blinded to the gospel"
and even if they did see it, could not understand it (Rom 3:11; 1 Cor
2:14)? 2) How can anyone "will" to do good works in some hope of at
least meriting some kinds of acceptance when "there is none who does
good, there is not even one"? 3) But most of all, how can anyone
change the inclination of his will when his original (fallen) state is
"there is none who seeks for God."
You fail in any sort of comprehension of the operation of the will.
You seem to think that freedom of choice operates without any sort of
govenor. You also seem to think that choice is between two to
opposite goals, that is, that from the fallen will, which fell because
of the operation of the will can undo that fall by an equal operation
of the will. But that is not how it works. A man who wills to commit
suicide cannot later will to become alive again. Man, after the fall,
is dead. His will cannot reorient itself to God. Like Potter's
staircase, once it has inclined away from being solely oriented to
please God, the will cannot "choose" to go good works as being
oriented to God. The fall changed the inclination of the will. Man
can be said to be sinning in his orientation, but he is never said to
be "holying." Holiness has its sole source in God alone.
>
> I Tim 2:3: For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our
> Saviour; Who will have ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the
> knowledge of the truth. (again, NOT just the elect, but all)
>
But you must be careful in you interpretation of "all." Many, many
places, "all" means most. For instance, look at Rom 11:26.
Obviously, because of what Paul has already stated in Rom 9:3, "all"
in 11:26 does not mean "absolutely all." Universalism uses the same
proof text as does the annihilation camp. Did you know that? Both
systems ignore the whole teaching of the Word, pulling individual
verses out of their context and reading into them their own
predisposed meaning.
Certainly God "desires" that all men would come to Him, but you have a
very shallow concept of who God is. Read the first chapters of Isaiah
or even Rev. He is a holy God. He cannot violate either His
holiness, nor the dignity of man.
> 2Pt:3:9: The Lord is not willing
Again, "will" here is a desire, not an action.
> Act 2:21; And it shall come to pass that WHOSOEVER shall call on the
> name of the Lord shall be saved. (Not just the elect, but whoever)
You confuse two different vantages. From heaven the threshold of
salvation reads, "Chosen before the foundation of the world," but from
man's view, by his conscious awareness looking from earth to heaven,
it reads, "whosoever will." The problem is, man cannot "will" unless
God first regenerates that will to it original disposition.
>
> Rom 10:9-10;
"No man seeks after God" How do you marry this two?
> Rev 3:20: Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My
> voice and opens the door, I will come in to him, and will dine with him, and
> he with Me. (Anyone does not mean *just the elect*)
*IF* But the natural man cannot discern spiritual things therefore he
cannot open the door, in point of fact, he is determined not to.
> Rev 22:17:
same as Rom 10.
> ------------------
> To sum up the Doctrine of Election, we may say, that The Elect of God
> are the "whosoever will" class, who CHOSE to come and take the water of life
> freely. And the non-elect or reprobates are the "whosoever will not" class
> who CHOSE to reject the Gospel.
> -God's Plan For Man, Finis Jennings Dake, Pg 620
What? Cut and paste? Really, the moderator should not have allowed
this post to pass for it does not meet the criterion.
Though I know that you are not willing to actually study the Calvinist
position by readin Calvinistic authors, I will yet suggest it to you
that you read the just released 3rd edition of Shedd's, "Dogmatic
Theology." All the German, Latin, Greek and Hebrew has been
translated and footnoted. But be careful, you might have to change
your views!
Matthew Johnson
>
[snip]
>Yet, as adults, especially we theologians who study the history of the
>doctrine, the various models and their intricacies (infusion vs
>imputation), the West's primarily legalistic definition versus the
>East's silence (as to specificity) on justification by faith (other
>than to explain it in terms of deification), all speak of the fact
>that there are many facets to the doctrine.
Since here you _do_ finally recognize our silence, I would appreciate it if you
stop accusing me of dodging the question when I follow this tradition!
[snip]
>I agree but would also (grab hold of your chair Matthew),
I did, I did! But I had to take both hands off the chair to type;)
> it think the
>East compliments
You must have meant 'complement', not 'compliment'. What we say about the
Westenr doctrine could _hardly_ be construed as 'complimentary';)
> the West in their personalization of the doctrine.
>The Reformed West is not wrong, it is absolutely right in orienting
>itself from a judicial vantage.
But this is where the East is quite uniform in disagreeing. The least derogatory
description (of the Reformed West's doctrine) I have seen (among Eastern
Orthodox writers) is 'one-sided'.
>However, it seems to me that in doing
>so, especially when having to confront the classical Romanist
>interpretation of "in" as opposed to "for," the doctrine becomes so
>defined that it forgets the Persons of the Trinity and each of Their
>specific ministries and involvement.
Perhaps. But St. Maximus the Confessor did not forget this.
> I think the East either falters
>or out right fails to correctly define the doctrine by their all
>evasive presupposition of theosis.
That is because you do not yet _understand_ our doctrine of theosis. You rely on
unreliable works like Clendenin's, and refuse to sit still long enough to
recognize the important (but often subtle) differences not only in our
terminology, but even in our entire _approach_ to theology.
>In their quest for true exegesis
>to gain the mystical perspective of the hidden meaning of the
>Scriptures which lie beyond or beneath the literal words of a
>particular passage, they minimize the propositional truth which God
>intended.
No, rather, what YOU christen "propositional truth" is at _best_ a one-sided
half-explanation. But whenever anyone tries to explain the others sides, you
lose patience.
> "Means" is sloppy English.
No, it is not. Not in Charles's sentence.
> I hate to be a stickler,
Not many lurkers will believe that;)
> I
>really do Charles, but we are at a point where words must be used in a
>very precise manner.
Then STOP misusing 'inclination' the way you do! Admit, at long last, that both
you and your hero Edwards fell into the "fallacy of composition" by refusing to
recognize that you used it in one meaning in one sentence, but in another in
another, and then tried to form a syllogism based on assuming the same meaning
in both!
[snip]
>i.e. Luther's "simul justus et pecator" or "at the same time, sinner
>and saint."
This is an example of the disastrous error stemming out of the Reformed West's
'one-sided' explanation, a disastrous delusion the Orthodox East must and does
reject.
[snip]
hed...@geneva.rutgers.edu
>So, all that said, I think we agree on most of this but you still
>yield to some degree of progression in "justification" whereas I view
>as a strict legal declaration. Is that a correct conclusion?
No, I don't think justification is progressive.
However I need to attach some caveats to the idea that justification
is purely forensic. Yes, it is a verdict pronounced by God with no
merit on our part. However in justification it has to be applied to us
(to use the words from Westminster).
The most consistent use of the forensic model is in Melanchthon. For
Luther and Calvin that was only part of the story. For both of them,
our union with Christ was key. In justification, Christ's
righteousness is applied to us, not just by God's verdict, but through
an actual union with Christ. Faith is in effect our end of the bond
with Christ. In this context faith should be looked at as something
created by the Holy Spirit as part of uniting us with Christ, not as a
human accomplishment, although of course we do end up doing things to
help it develop.
If justification happened purely in the courthouse records and didn't
involve us, there would be no sense in talking about justification by
faith or justifying faith. At one point I thought "justification by
faith" was in effect misleading, that justification actually happened
independent of faith, and we just *receive* it in faith. But that
doesn't seem to be what Luther and Calvin meant.
I trust I have now sufficiently shown how man's only resource for
escaping from the curse of the law, and recovering salvation, lies in
faith; and also what the nature of faith is, what the benefits which
it confers, and the fruits which it produces. The whole may be thus
summed up: Christ given to us by the kindness of God is apprehended
and possessed by faith, by means of which we obtain in particular a
twofold benefit; first, being reconciled by the righteousness of
Christ, God becomes, instead of a judge, an indulgent Father; and,
secondly, being sanctified by his Spirit, we aspire to integrity and
purity of life. [Institutes 3.11.1]
This makes justification (which is his "being reconciled by the
righteousness of Christ") a benefit or fruit of faith. If McGrath is
right (and I think he is), Calvin's concentration isn't actually on
faith so much as on the union with Christ. In justification God
forgives us, but he does so not by a bare decision, but by uniting us
with Christ and applying Christ's righteousness to us in that union.
Although Calvin may be regarded as following Melanchthon in [saying
that justification is always not in us but in Christ], he nevertheless
preserves an important aspect of Luther's understanding of
justification which Melanchthon abandoned -- the personal union of
Christ and the believer in justification. Calvin speaks of the
believer being 'grafted into Christ', so that the concept of
*incorporation* becomes central to his understanding of justification.
The /iustitia Christi/, on the basis of which man is justified, is
treated as if it were man's within the context of the intimate
personal relationship of Christ and the believer. ... justification is
now conceived *Christologically* ... Faith is but the vessel which
receives Christ ... Faith may thus be said to be the instrumental
cause of justification. It will, however, be clear that Calvin is
actually concerned not so much with justification, as with
incorporation into Christ (which has, as one of its necessary
consequences, justification). [McGrath, Iustitia Dei, vol 2, p 36-37]
I'm going somewhat beyond what McGrath says in noting that faith seems
to be our participation in this personal relationship with
Christ. Thus justification isn't finished until faith is present,
because faith is our end of the relationship between Christ and the
believer on the basis of which Christ's righteousness is ours. From
God's point of view justification is applied to us through our union
with Christ, which God establishes through the Holy Spirit. From our
point of view, justification is received through faith, which is our
participation in that union.
a man will be justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness
of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness of Christ, and
clothed in it appears in the sight of God not as a sinner, but as
righteous. [Institutes 3.11.2]
The reason justification isn't progressive is that it's really
something that God does: he is applying Christ's righeousness by means
of a union that he sets up. Faith in this context is created by
God. Of course faith grows and weakens. But from the point of view of
justification, once we have been grafted into Christ, that union
always exists, and thus faith, to one extent or another, always
exists. Justification is the term used for the fact that we are
Christ's. God doesn't forgive partially or make us partially his
children. Sanctification describes the way this transforms our lives.
Loren
> >lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) asks me various questions about a
> preceding posting.
>
> >An under statement in one sense, an over statement in an other. RC
> >Sproul in one of his lectures on justification, mentions the day that
> >his 8 yr old daughter was saved.
>
> I would say that something happened to Sproul's daughter. I'm not sure
> "was saved" would be it. Among other things, that ignores the fact
> that for Calvin "salvation" includes both justification and
> sanctification. I would be willing to say that she experienced
> justification. Whether that is the actual beginning of her
> justification only God can say.
>
glorification (Rom 8:30) But I become confused when you say on the
one hand, "she experienced justification" and then on the other hand
speak of "the actual beginning of her justification."
Looking at Titus 3:5-7, justification is not based upon regeneration.
The more I ponder this issue, the more I think it follows the normal
paradigm of Father, Son & Holy Ghost. The Father calls, the Son
justifies and the HS regenerates and brings to the point of
conversion. As historically the Son's advent preceeded the coming of
the HS, just so, the declaration of justification preceeds
regeneration and the ensuing enablement leading to conversion and to
sanctification.
>
> >> As usual, I'd like to avoid arguing over definitions of words.
> >> Justification is used by the Reformers in a technical sense, based on
> >> certain works by Paul. It is used otherwise by James.
> >
> >But it is certainly more than this. It also involves the Hebraic
> >concept and words (htsdyq) as well. When speaking properly of, the
> >verb "to justify" is always used in a forensic manner (Ex 23:7, Prov.
> >17:15) as justification always terminates in God (Ps 51:4).
>
> I can't comment on Hebrew. Sorry. In the NT I would say that
> justification can most commonly be seen as you say, but James seems to
> be an exception,
>
James 3:2 For we all stumble in many {ways.} If anyone does not
stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole
body as well. [NASB]
He is adressing sanctification, not justification, in this passage.
By so doing he nulifies inherent righteousness as gaining perfection,
for in truth, it is neither actual nor habitual.
>
> as is Lk 10:29 and 16:14. However I would classify Lk
> 18:14 as forensic. As I said originally, they took a word which has
> several meanings, and gave it a technical definition. That doesn't
> mean I think the technical definition is wrong. I think there is a
> good basis for it in the way the word is commonly used in the NT.
>
Yet both 10:29 and 16:14 denote a declaration. That is an act. 10:29
could be read, "wishing to declare Himself publicly." If we are said
to justify God, is that not a forensic act?
>
> >Such as "Evangelicals and Catholics Together?" (ETC)
>
> I do not suggest minimizing classic Reformed doctrines. However people
> in the Reformed tradition often accuse Catholics of things that simply
> aren't true. Even those who oppose ECT realize that the Catholic
> position isn't really Pelagian.
>
And RCism has historically denounced Pelagianism every time it raised
it's head against that church.
>
> There are many things on which
> Catholics and Protestants agree, including the necessity for grace.
> However the way they conceive of grace is different, and that
> difference has significant practical consequences.
>
"Significant!" It is so significant that one system provides true
acceptance before the bar of God's justice while the other does not.
Yes, significant in the eternal extreme. Yet, Turretin quotes
Cardinal Contarini:
------
Since we reach a twofold righteousness by faith, a righteousness
inherent in us, and the love and grace by which we are made partakers
of the divine nature; and the righteousness of Christ given and
imputed to us, sinse we are planted in Christ and put on Christ: it
remains to inquire, on which of these we ought to rest, and to think
ourselves justified before God (i.e., reckoned holy and righteous). I
truly think it to be said piously and religiously that we ought to
rest, I say rest as upon a stable thing, which can certainly sustain
us, upon the righteouness of Christ bestowed upon, and not upon the
holiness and grace inherent in us. For this our righteousness is
inchoate and imperfect which cannot keep us from offending and from
constantly sinning in many things. Therefore we cannot in the sight
of God on account of this our righteousness be esteemed rigteous and
good, as it becomes the sons of God to be good and holy. . . . We must
therefore rest upon this alone and on account of it alone we must
believe that we are justified before God."
Even Cardinal Bellarmine, in the end, comes to the same conclusion
after a long winded defense of man's merit via infused righteousness.
>
> I'm not sure why you think "means" in "Justification means our
> acceptance by God as righteous on account of the merits of Christ" is
> sloppy.
>
I"m not sure either. Sorry. I must have misread what you wrote.
>
> Calvin does often say that justification means God's acceptance of us.
>
Perhaps I arbitrarily read "by means". Certainly we are not justifed
"by means" of God's acceptance. God's acceptance should never be
thought of as either the material or the instrumental cause. Again,
sorry.
>
> According to the forensic model, justification is the rendering of a
> verdict of innocent because the righteousness of Christ has been
> imputed to us. If you stop there, no faith is needed. Because Calvin's
> definition of justification emphasizes God's acceptance, it could be
> taken in that way. That's the ambiguity I mentioned.
>
I agree. Technically we could say the God's declaration is all that
is required. But for man's sake and from his perspective, he must
make a confession.
>
> However justification is said to be by faith because the whole action
> isn't finished until we receive it in faith. That doesn't mean that
> God's verdict depends upon our faith. However the whole process of
> justification, as used by the Reformers, is more than just a verdict.
> This is why justification isn't just a legal fiction.
>
It's a legal diction,.
But I would submit, that when we would state "it isn't finished", we
would not apply that to justification. Justification is solely an act
of God provisionally, both in providing the basis of sins removal and
in the declaration. Man can neither add nor subtract from this "legal
diction." Justification in and of itself does not cause the effect of
conversion. Justification is noted as being attributed to and based
upon Christ and His work. He is the "just and justifier." It is the
ministry of the Spirit who then, by grace, regenerates and leads to
conversion. Justification is strickly a punctilian event.
>
> According to Pelikan, there was a late medieval view that "located the
> forgiveness of sins and justification in a sheer act of divine
> imputation. In opposition to this [Luther] stressed that "against this
> horrible, terrible interpretation and error, the holy apostle has the
> practice that he always connects faith to Jesus Christ." ... faith was
> the divinely created ability to appropriate the promise of grace in
> Christ." [Pelikan, Reformation of Church and Dogma, p 154]
>
But I see Luther yet unaware of all the particulars of the paradigm
here. Brazen on my part to say that, but this is my humble opinion.
There were several things he did not work out to the necessary degree.
I would suggest that Turretin is more authoritative in the Reformed
position concerning justification. BTW, Turretin view regeneration as
progressive but not justification.
>
> Christ's righteousness is actually active in us (though it always
> remains "alien") through what Calvin calls the "fellowship of
> righteousness." [Inst 3.11.10] Until that fellowship exists,
> justification in the full sense isn't finished.
>
I disagree. This confuses basis from operation. Justification does
not involve the believer in that sense. Justification is an act of
God, not man. When Adam sinned, there was no progression in the
declaration. He was immediately declared a rebel. There is no middle
ground to being declared just as there was no middle ground between
being holy and being the rebel in the inclination of Adam's will.
>
>I would say that it is
> our dependence on Christ's righteousness in faith that sets up the
> "fellowship." For the Reformers, faith isn't our own work, but
> something that is created in us by the Holy Spirit.
>
> See WCF 11:
>
I'm presently listening to 6 hrs of Schaeffer lecturing on
justification in his studies on the Standards. I also have Sproul's
lectures on justification. Sproul makes it clear that justification
is a "legal diction." Schaeffer, as far as I've listened to his
lectures thus far, agrees with this. Also, Turretin so notes it.
>
> I understand 2 as meaing that the Holy Spirit applies Christ to us
> through our faith.
>
But that is the fruit, not the particular of the declaration.
>
>
> Saying that justification for infants occurs at baptism may be
> muddled. In fact I think the answer is that we don't know how
> justification occurs for them.
Oh I agree. Even as we haven't a clue as to why some are chosen and
some are not, so we don't know about infants other than the inference
of David's child. Perhaps the infants of the elect, being of the
"household" are saved, but not those of the non-elect. But these are
just musings.
> Calvin says that infants are baptized
> "for future repentance and faith," the seed of which lies in them
> (presumably only if they are elect) "by the secret operation of the
> Holy Spirit" [4.16.20] because they are engrafted into Christ. As far
> as I can tell, he doesn't actually answer whether they are justified.
> If you regard justification as being the creation of the "fellowship
> of righteousness" with Christ, then the thrust of Calvin's discussion
> about infants would probably be to say that because they aren't
> capable of faith in the adult sense, this is done by the "secret
> operation of the Holy Spirit," which however grows into faith over
> time.
as you say, it is a mystery. However, while on the topic of infants
and even fetus', here I would add that infusion, strictly held, has
even less of a hope than does impartation. At least impartation
speaks of solely a divine declaration, whereas infusion requires the
addition of merit to obtain the declaration. Purgatory is a horrific
percipatate of infusion.
Loren
> lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) asks
>
>
> If justification happened purely in the courthouse records and didn't
> involve us, there would be no sense in talking about justification by
> faith or justifying faith.
I was listening to Schaeffer in the car on the way home from work
today. He gave the illustration of his daughter being in some store
and broke something. The store owner called Edith because her
daughter didn't have any money to pay for the broken item. Edith told
the owner just to put it on her tab.
Obviously this illustrates justification to a point (the owner could
have made the daughter to work off the debt over time). Edith paid
for the item. The daughter had no involvement in this "justification"
other than being the offender. She accepted her mothers offer to pay
for it in her stead. So yes, even existentially, justification can be
purely a "courthouse record." In fact, that is what it is for us,
though we inherit benefits from that declaration via the inherent
righteousness of Christ achieving both value and merit in us.
> At one point I thought "justification by
> faith" was in effect misleading, that justification actually happened
> independent of faith, and we just *receive* it in faith. But that
> doesn't seem to be what Luther and Calvin meant.
>
Is not our righteousness real and sufficient imputatively, by which,
if we are not formally righteous by inherent righteousness, still we
are formally justified by the imputation of it, so that apart from it
there is no other material of our righteousness before God?
> I trust I have now sufficiently shown how man's only resource for
> escaping from the curse of the law, and recovering salvation, lies in
> faith; and also what the nature of faith is, what the benefits which
> it confers, and the fruits which it produces. The whole may be thus
> summed up: Christ given to us by the kindness of God is apprehended
> and possessed by faith, by means of which we obtain in particular a
> twofold benefit; first, being reconciled by the righteousness of
> Christ, God becomes, instead of a judge, an indulgent Father; and,
> secondly, being sanctified by his Spirit, we aspire to integrity and
> purity of life. [Institutes 3.11.1]
>
> This makes justification (which is his "being reconciled by the
> righteousness of Christ") a benefit or fruit of faith.
I don't read the above quote to be saying that. For instance, in Rom
5:1, "peace" is a benefit of have been declared just. The money has
been put in the bank and it has been declared to be there. Faith
merely believes it true and then goes in and draws the money out. The
money is there regardless of whether I go in today or 50 yrs from now
to draw it out. The benefits are progressively applied, but the
declaration is a singular event. My faith has no efficency in whether
or not the money is actually there. Faith does not produce (fruit)
justification.
If this were not so, Paul illustration of armor in Eph 6 breaks down
immediately.
Eph. 6:14 Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth,
and having put on the breastplate of righteousness ,
Eph. 6:15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the
gospel of peace ;
Eph. 6:16 in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which
you will be able to extinguish all the flaming missiles of the evil
{one.}
Eph. 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the
Spirit, which is the word of God.
The breast plate, the shoes and the helmet would all be full of holes
if we see any sense of of progression is justification or for that
matter, salvation. But have to be accomplished, once and for all
acts. There are many other illustrations which falter especially if
one applies the RC paradigm of infusion.
> If McGrath is
> right (and I think he is), Calvin's concentration isn't actually on
> faith so much as on the union with Christ.
theosis?
> In justification God
> forgives us, but he does so not by a bare decision, but by uniting us
> with Christ and applying Christ's righteousness to us in that union.
>
Oh most certainly. There is indeed a double imputation. But like
drawing money out of the bank, the full allotment is already there, we
just draw out so much at a time. Drawing out is sanctification, not
justification. God has placed Christ's righteousness into an account
bearing our name. It is up to us to go to that bank and draw it out.
But it matters not how much or how little we draw as to whether or not
the funds are there.
>
> Although Calvin may be regarded as following Melanchthon in [saying
> that justification is always not in us but in Christ], he nevertheless
> preserves an important aspect of Luther's understanding of
> justification which Melanchthon abandoned -- the personal union of
> Christ and the believer in justification. Calvin speaks of the
> believer being 'grafted into Christ',
This would be adoption. Again, another declarative act which does not
involve the child other than being a recipient of the benefits
therein.
> It will, however, be clear that Calvin is
> actually concerned not so much with justification, as with
> incorporation into Christ (which has, as one of its necessary
> consequences, justification). [McGrath, Iustitia Dei, vol 2, p 36-37]
>
> I'm going somewhat beyond what McGrath says in noting that faith seems
> to be our participation in this personal relationship with
> Christ. Thus justification isn't finished until faith is present,
> because faith is our end of the relationship between Christ and the
> believer on the basis of which Christ's righteousness is ours. From
> God's point of view justification is applied to us through our union
> with Christ, which God establishes through the Holy Spirit. From our
> point of view, justification is received through faith, which is our
> participation in that union.
>
"from out point of view." Didn't I mention the distinction which must
be made as it being explained from the human or the divine point of
view? Certainly we enjoy none of the benefits if we don't go to the
bank and draw out the money. And how many Christian's are so poor
spiritually because of this. Also, this will certainly be the primary
condemnation of those who never believed at all. The money was in the
bank to pay off their debt but they refused. The wealth, the infinite
riches made available through the life and death of Christ, "To whom
much is given, much is expected" will sentence everyone who rejects it
to be "without excuse."
As I now think of it, taking this view to fruition, everyone is
justified, but as you say, only our faith determines it. So I guess,
after all, I am beginning to comprehend your argument.
> a man will be justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness
> of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness of Christ, and
> clothed in it appears in the sight of God not as a sinner, but as
> righteous. [Institutes 3.11.2]
>
> The reason justification isn't progressive is that it's really
> something that God does: he is applying Christ's righeousness by means
> of a union that he sets up. Faith in this context is created by
> God. Of course faith grows and weakens.
But that is specific to sanctification, not justification. "From
faith to faith"
> But from the point of view of
> justification, once we have been grafted into Christ, that union
> always exists, and thus faith, to one extent or another, always
> exists. Justification is the term used for the fact that we are
> Christ's. God doesn't forgive partially or make us partially his
> children. Sanctification describes the way this transforms our lives.
They've just released a portion of Francis Turretin's, "Institutes of
Elenctic Theology." RC Sproul writes an intro to it and quotes both
Luther and Calvin often as pertaining to justification and then gives
a brief history of Turretin's involvement. It is entitled,
"Justification."
You can't go wrong here for a mere $8. Excellent reading. Very legal
minded.
Loren
>
> Since here you _do_ finally recognize our silence, I would appreciate it if you
> stop accusing me of dodging the question when I follow this tradition!
>
Regardless, whether you or Orthodoxy in general, it dodges the
question which Paul views as paramount to the Gospel. It is the
doctrine of justification which so distanced the Gospel from the Law
and allows not commingling of the two. I acknowledge the silence, but
I don't accept it. It begs the very essence of what it means to be
truly "saved."
>
> > I think the East either falters
> >or out right fails to correctly define the doctrine by their all
> >evasive presupposition of theosis.
>
> That is because you do not yet _understand_ our doctrine of theosis. You rely on
> unreliable works like Clendenin's, and refuse to sit still long enough to
> recognize the important (but often subtle) differences not only in our
> terminology, but even in our entire _approach_ to theology.
>
Of course I rely upon him and others. It is required of the Western
mindset. How could it be otherwise? Also, I do so because I have
neither the time nor the inclination to pursue it further than that.
Besides, OC is so mystical. Though everything I read calls for
distinguishing it from Eastern pantheism, in truth, I am having a very
difficult time in doing just that. As for being a "god," I just don't
have that desire. I regard that in the terms of the Pharisaical as
exhibited in the comparative prayers/attitude of the publican (who
went home justified). I appreciate the biblical declarations, but I
don't pursue it in the way I perceive the OC pursue theosis, and
certainly not to the extend of declaring this person or that having
fully achieved it in this life time. Sorry.
>
>
> >i.e. Luther's "simul justus et pecator" or "at the same time, sinner
> >and saint."
>
> This is an example of the disastrous error stemming out of the Reformed West's
> 'one-sided' explanation,
Romans 7. The Corinthian church! Every believer who has ever lived.
> a disastrous delusion the Orthodox East must and does
> reject.
>
Actually, it reveals the beauty, the marvelous beauty of His grace.
No one is justified by Christ who is not also sanctified and gifted
with inherent righteousness (from which believers can truly be
denominated holy and righteous although not perfectly in this life).
Paul does not teach that the believer is justified by regeneration
(Tit 3:5-7). Works are nowhere involved and therefore ascribed to His
grace. This thus illustrates the fact that He is unwilling to ascribe
justification to righteousness inhering by regeneration, which is
rather the fruit than the cause of justification. Rather, we are
saved by two benefits of His grace 1) justification which is obtained
from the 2nd Person and 2) regeneration which is obtained from the 3rd
Person.
Rom 8:29 speaks of our conformity to the image of Christ to which we
are predestined. This means that we are made partakers of His
inherent holiness and righteousness but it does not allow for the
reduction to our being justified by that inherent righteousness.
Actually, I view the OC position as having one foot in the Reformist
camp and the other in the Romanist camp. The later by the repeated
call to define salvation via "divinization", the former by acceptance
of both the vicarious nature of the atonement (Athanasius) and the
legal imputation of Christ's righteousness and the legal understanding
of justification by faith.
I just don't think it was to be that complicated. In my previous post
mentioning Sproul's daughter, she hit the nail on the head when she
answered her fathers query, "I just feel completely clean inside.
That is justification experientially. I've never sinned. In fact, I
have performed the entire law without a single deviation or failure of
intent. I'm perfect. The qualifier is, "in Christ."
Pastor Frank
> >
> > Where "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) the whole Calvinist theology is
most
> > repulsive and devoid of love.
> >
> syntax will not allow for it to be rearranged to read, "Love is God."
>
"love is God"? That is self-evident, for "God is love" among many similar
such attributes.
> God is not governed by love. Love is governed by holiness. The
> justice of a holy God must first be met before the love of God can be
> acted.
>
> I bet you do not live consistant to the principle you infer above.
> I'll bet that when an injustice occurs, you do not say, "Oh, that's
> alright. Let it go." When your favorite sports team loses because of
> an unjust call, you probably hoop and holler and make a big stink
> about it. Yet you think it unfair if God judges "he who does not
> believe" because he is incapable of believing because "no man seeketh
> after God". Preference and principle are not one and the same. Sure,
> every one's preference is that all make it to heaven, but the guiding
> principle of the offended holiness of an infinite God can not wink at
> sin.
>
Again why would you "bet" that I would "not live consistent with the
principles"? Did I claim that I did? You lose all your bets, for I am much
too literalist a fundamentalist to even consider any such things. My main
reference are the inerrant words of Christ, and if He says in Mk:2:17:
"They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick:
I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" I believe it.
Christ clearly makes a distinction here between elect and reprobates,
and that His purpose in coming is to heal and save reprobates and NOT the
elect. Hence Calvin's "selective attonement" means the opposite, as Christ
died not for the elect, but for reprobates. Therefore I would rather be a
reprobate than an elect, and you pointing out my shortcomings substantiate
my reprobation.
His words also show that Calvin's "total depravity" is a lie, for as
Christ points out, there are those that are righteous and who don't need
Him. They get what they deserve, (see below) whereas I a reprobate hope NOT
to get what I deserve, my only hope being the grace of Christ.
Pastor Frank
Rv:20:12: And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the
books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life:
and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the
books, according to their works.
Rv:20:13: And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell
delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man
according to their works.
Rv:22:12: And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give
every man according as his work shall be.
Matthew Johnson
>Matthew Johnson <matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:<hyq1d.14866$z_3.9270@trndny07>...
>
>>
>>Since here you _do_ finally recognize our silence, I would appreciate it if you
>> stop accusing me of dodging the question when I follow this tradition!
>>
>Regardless, whether you or Orthodoxy in general, it dodges the
>question which Paul views as paramount to the Gospel.
No, it does not. Rather, you are again resorting to drastic eisegesis to claim
that this is Paul's "question paramount to the Gospel" -- an expression that
doesn't even quite make sense.
>It is the
>doctrine of justification which so distanced the Gospel from the Law
>and allows not commingling of the two.
No, it is that of salvation by/through 'faith'. But what a pity you insist on
misunderstanding what this must _mean_!
> I acknowledge the silence, but I don't accept it.
But it is only because of your petulance that you do not 'accept it'.
> It begs the very essence of what it means to be truly "saved."
No, it doesn't. Rather, you insist on upholding something _else_ as "the very
essence of what it means to be truly 'saved.'" But this is NOT what Paul taught.
What Paul taught was what St. Mark the ascetic put more succinctly:
The reward is given to the Lord's servants NOT according to debt.
But those who do not truly serve him will NOT obtain freedom
(Saying 19,About those, who Expect to be Justified by Works
http://pagez.ru/lsn/0122.php)
No doubt you will continue to refuse to see it, because you continue to ignore
the ascetic context of Paul.
>> > I think the East either falters
>> >or out right fails to correctly define the doctrine by their all
>> >evasive presupposition of theosis.
>>
>>That is because you do not yet _understand_ our doctrine of theosis. You rely on
>> unreliable works like Clendenin's, and refuse to sit still long enough to
>> recognize the important (but often subtle) differences not only in our
>> terminology, but even in our entire _approach_ to theology.
>>
>Of course I rely upon him and others. It is required of the Western
>mindset.
No, it is not. Not unlesss you want to _assume_ that "Western mindset" implies
DARKNESS.
> How could it be otherwise?
How many times have I already answered this? I have lost count already. Go back
to Augustine and read what he _wrote_ instead of reading what Shedd or Neander
_says_ he wrote. Then you will at least have a chance of understanding the
answer to your question -- and agreeing with it.
>Also, I do so because I have
>neither the time nor the inclination to pursue it further than that.
Your loss. But if you would spend less time writing bombastic bluster, you just
might find the time.
>Besides, OC is so mystical.
As is the Christian faith itself. Even Paul in his epistles refers to Christ and
the Church as "a great mystery (Eph 5:32)". If you really understood the word
'mystery', you would know that this verse alone is adequate justification for
the _entire_ apophatic way of theology!
So "OC is so mystical" is no excuse.
>Though everything I read calls for
>distinguishing it from Eastern pantheism, in truth, I am having a very
>difficult time in doing just that.
Because you don't LISTEN. They are as different as night and day. For in
"Eastern pantheism", one looks around at the created universe and says, "this is
all there is, so it must be God". But in Orthodox Christianity, we remember the
essential difference made so plain by the mother of the Maccabees, who,
exhorting her last surviving son to martyrdom, said:
I beseech you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth
and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God
MADE THEM OUT OF NOTHING. Thus also
mankind comes into being. (2Mac 7:28)
Now maybe that does not sound like an effective exhortation to today's common
man. But it was very effective. Perhaps you would understand its effect better
if you did not embrace a revisionist intepretation of Gen 1:1 that denies that
God created all things out of nothing!
But this _is_ the essential difference! God, although "everywhere present and
filling all things", is nevertheless Himself radically OTHER than Creation. How
can you confuse this with "Eastern Pantheism"?
>As for being a "god," I just don't have that desire.
Then either you do not understand what the Fathers means by "being a god", or
you despise the offer of God. At this point, I could even believe BOTH.
>I regard that in the terms of the Pharisaical as
>exhibited in the comparative prayers/attitude of the publican (who
>went home justified).
Another poor excuse for a poorer "straw-man" argument! For that is NOT what they
are talking about!
>I appreciate the biblical declarations,
No, you do not. For if you really did appreciate them for what they really say,
you would NOT glibly equate the Orthodox doctrine with being 'Pharisaical'.
>but I don't pursue it in the way I perceive the OC pursue theosis,
And why would you? For you are still totally alien to theosis. You continue to
insist on running downhill while you loudly proclaim you are running uphill. So
you are not even headed in the same direction as those headed to theosis. No
wonder you do not understand how it is to be desired with all your heart!
>and
>certainly not to the extend of declaring this person or that having
>fully achieved it in this life time. Sorry.
Uh, when did I say any person fully achieved it in this lifetime? I did not say
that even about St. Seraphim of Sarov, whose achievement was truly astounding.
What I _did_ say is that some manage to free themselves from sin even in this
life, but even they are few. I refer to those who have purified themselves and
gone past the stage of struggle against the passions proceeding to struggle for
Prayer of the Mind in the Heart. St. Silouan of Mt. Athos was such a person.
>> >i.e. Luther's "simul justus et pecator" or "at the same time, sinner
>> >and saint."
>>
>>This is an example of the disastrous error stemming out of the Reformed West's
>> 'one-sided' explanation,
>
>Romans 7.
Wrong.
>The Corinthian church!
Wrong again.
> Every believer who has ever lived.
Nonsense. Why, even after complaing for so long of your arrogance, the _new_
height of arrogance you reach with this claim takes my breath away!
>> a disastrous delusion the Orthodox East must and does
>> reject.
>>
>Actually, it reveals the beauty, the marvelous beauty of His grace.
No, rather, what is revealed is that since you have latched onto a counterfeit
of grace and called it 'grace', you are deep in delusion.
If the "devil can appear as an angel of light", you should not be surprised that
you can be deceived by a counterfeit of grace.
>No one is justified by Christ who is not also sanctified and gifted
>with inherent righteousness (from which believers can truly be
>denominated holy and righteous although not perfectly in this life).
>Paul does not teach that the believer is justified by regeneration
>(Tit 3:5-7).
These verses imply no such thing.
>Works are nowhere involved and therefore ascribed to His grace.
What _are_ you talking about? You speak as if you had read only Paul and not
even that well. For Phil 2:12-13 contradicts you.
But if this is not clear enough, then again, St. Mark explains the involvement
will with:
Every good deed which is done by our natural powers, distances us
from the opposing vice; but without grace, it cannot give us
enlightenment (Saying 24 Ibid)
> This thus illustrates the fact that He is unwilling to ascribe
>justification to righteousness inhering by regeneration, which is
>rather the fruit than the cause of justification.
Since I rejected your premise, of course I see your conclusion as groundless.
>Rather, we are
>saved by two benefits of His grace 1) justification which is obtained
>from the 2nd Person and 2) regeneration which is obtained from the 3rd
>Person.
No, rather, it is through the 2nd person that our _nature_ is saved, i.e., the
objective conditions making salvation possible are presented to us in the
Church; but it is through the 3rd that our own 'individual' hypostases are
saved, i.e, the _subjective_ conditions are realized.(Lossky Chapter 10, 'The
Way of Union', "Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church").
>Rom 8:29 speaks of our conformity to the image of Christ to which we
>are predestined. This means that we are made partakers of His
>inherent holiness and righteousness but it does not allow for the
>reduction to our being justified by that inherent righteousness.
>Actually, I view the OC position as having one foot in the Reformist
>camp and the other in the Romanist camp.
Actually, as long as you insist on your right to ignorance, counting on Shedd &
Clendenin while ignoring Lossky and even Augustine, I don't _care_ what your
'view' is. As an ignorant view, it carries NO weight.
>The later by the repeated
>call to define salvation via "divinization", the former by acceptance
>of both the vicarious nature of the atonement (Athanasius) and the
>legal imputation of Christ's righteousness and the legal understanding
>of justification by faith.
>
>I just don't think it was to be that complicated. In my previous post
>mentioning Sproul's daughter, she hit the nail on the head when she
>answered her fathers query, "I just feel completely clean inside.
>That is justification experientially. I've never sinned.
But this is what reveals the ugly truth, that what you call 'justification' is
no such thing, but is arrogant presumption! No, the "justfied sinner" (whatever
that would really mean) cannot say "I've never sinned", he says something more
like, "I have sinned, and sinned horribly, but God has cleansed me, and now I am
whiter than snow".
Besides: isn't it obvious? "I've never sinned" is COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE with
your beloved "simul iustus & peccator"!
Not to mention: you are using 'experientially' as an excuse to set your own
opinion over the Gospel, instead of relying on 'sola scriptura' as you claim to
do.
But those who really were 'justified' do not do this. Rather they agree withSt.
Mark the Ascetic who said:
Some people, while not fulfilling the commandments, consider themselves
right-believers; but others fulfilling the commandments, expect the
Kingdom, as a necessary reward. But both sin against the truth.
(Saying# 18, About those, who Expect to be Justified by Works)
(http://pagez.ru/lsn/0122.php)
So which class of 'those who sin against the truth' does saying "I've never
sinned" put you in?
>In fact, I
>have performed the entire law without a single deviation or failure of
>intent.
This IS what the Pharisee claimed in his presumptious prayer!
> I'm perfect. The qualifier is, "in Christ."
No, that is not the 'qualifier' _Christ_ gave us! This is your eisegesis again.