Read Romans 5,6,7 they are primarly the focus of this topic.
Sin is that it is used to represent both the acts and the state of rebellion itself toward God.
This distinction is brought over toward its anti-type. It shows the same confusion. Obediance is both: of the acts (faithfulness) and of the state of trust and loyalty (faith).
The protestant idea of saving faith says that the faithfulness comes from the former (faith). In the same way the act of sin comes from reign of rebellion. It isn't a strectch from scripture. It is right there. This is the causal difference. This supports the statements of sin before the flood as well as about federal headship. This is how also how all die through one sin, and many are made righteous through one act of one man. The passage primarily deals with rebellion/power of sin in Romans 5. And most of Romans 6 does too.
Romans 7 deals almost solely with the acts of sin or things done "in sin". This is a subtle distiction from sin itself since rebellion most assuringly leads to the action in due time. They are both aptly called "sin". Romans 7 shows a constrast because there are two things at work in the members of the body. The spirit and the flesh. It also does not negate Romans six about being slaves of righteousness since it makes a distinction between inner and outer body. The protestant understanding of faith and faithfulness applies.
This means that the state of faith is before and contributing to faithfulness. This state of faith is suffiecent to save since it is the cause of the other. Saved by faith alone, not faith plus faithfulness (which is evaluated with acts done over time). This is why faith is the instrumental cause not faithfulness too. This is shown in how Abraham was accounted righteous before he was circumcised.
Yet, faith is more than assensus. It is shown true (and faithful) when it is of the "saving" variety. With this variety, God is effectual in bringing about faithfulness. Faith is the source, faithfulness the result.
This is because of God's faithfulness, not man's own. It is based upon the promises of new covenant life put forth in scripture. These promises are all based upon trust and faith, not on our faithfulness. It is apart from any law.
Lets look at Romans 3:3. The faithlessness of the jews does not nullify the faithfulness of God. Then, 2 Timothy 2:13. It is clearly not a question of man's faithfulness in these promises. It is a question of God's faithfulness. This does not reject any need for holiness or sanctification. (which consists primarily of faithfulness) It is not at all denying that God WILL in due time work and will that "faithfulness" into a person who is saved by faith alone through grace alone.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Saturday, April 8, 2006
My Catholicism
We shall leave any caricatures at the door. There are some things that I am more Augustinian than most of the reformed, but I am definitely not Lutheran.
Martin Luther had an issue with the relation of traditional (catholic) views of grace with his own. He formed the argument narrowly to exclude established catholic doctrine. Catholic doctrine has things that are considered unbiblical but it would be easier to place the burden upon them by their own beliefs. I say this because I believe in infused grace to a certain extent. A saving faith will show itself by this infusion of grace which works.
I also believe that any grace given is a real grace. My theology would be accurately described as infused grace itself is result of the actions from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit interacts with one's intermost being. This itself is the real grace from God, bought by the blood of christ.
Infused grace by this definition is potentially grace in the sense that it is the means in which God is pleased to use to bring real grace to bare. It is also real grace only in the sense that it was bought and undeserved as well. God wills and works when he sanctifies. He will also effectively do it. It is not fictitious, it is not potential alone, for it is real alone. There is no cooperation in the Catholic or Lutheran sense either for me. I believe that any distinction between the indwelling of the spirit and with Catholicism's infused (potential) grace is false. This breakdown is only a way to give a step for man for an action. Man cannot contribute or he is liable to be taking God's glory. God is more pleased to work through a person than just by them. God shall not share his glory with another. From first to last, it is all of grace, or what is left is all of heresy.
Infused grace (catholic sense) rather than relying upon God, the spirit, says that God has acted, so you must now act. This is rarely seen as the biblical version of God acting through a person. There is no shift between the phases. God who began a good work will surely bring it to completion. Including the good work of sanctification. God acts in it all. It is this kind of instrumentality which is biblical. Infused grace is not this model. In contrast real grace is direct and can be accounted. Any indirect grace with man's required help only serves to place a barrier to this biblical instrumentality. God with the catholic's infused grace does not use his chosen instruments to achieve, rather it relies some other merit or work brought by a person or saint. God merely stands to the side in the glorious acts of holiness and goodness that go on in the church . God is robbed of his glory for working his actions through man. God no longer has done it with his own hand. He has also not contributed anything significant to show if it be not real. This is inconsistent with revealed revelation of scripture. God delights in using men for his goals but not without himself being intimitely involved.
Next, Lets discuss the state of grace in people and what it means to be full of grace. It is infused grace to its fullest, with sanctifying actions of the Spirit to show. It is constantly active faith without the withdrawal into a dry but minimal existence. Sanctifying grace is shed abroad in out hearts for God's glory. Yet, this quantity of the Spirit is still Infused grace with many real actions toward godliness being actual grace. These real actions are nothing less than God's work through us. The Virgin Mary by this definition is in fact very godly. She should be seen as among the holiest and most chaste of women. Blessed indeed. It does not however require a crazy idea of immaculate conception for Mary. It requires only her conversion by the Grace of God and God's continual worked actions in her. It only requires God's continual unmerited favor. This in and of itself is because of god's eternal dealings with man.
The main difference from real and infused grace must therefore lie in the fact that God also cannot be glorified for doing nothing alone. Nothing can't be bought by the blood of Christ. Grace is entirely real and effectual or it lives an imaginary life. Grace cannot have any result but praise and glory by unmerited favor for God himself. Grace cannot have any source for merit if God's work in it is not the only commendable merit in it.
Let me go Eastern Orthodox on you for a sec. Their definition is that grace is God's uncreated energies. This would fit with infused grace to a degree. If this definition were allowed for grace, it fits closely to the issue with infused grace. Yet, I reject that grace is potential alone. This is in error because it has no notion of God acting. God is passive. Man is passive. Like the rays of the sun striking something. The sun doesn't cause the event (knowingly). This analogy at least recognizes the object doesn't really cause the event either. The object can only alter its position to be in its path. This is not the instrumentality of God with which he compels men effectively in a way that is not against their will.
I would disagree and say that grace is rather God's newly created energies/mercies in people by unmerited favor. Granted by the indwelt Holy Ghost who is the Spirit of grace. It is not uncreated but rather fully created energies which actively stream from God and passive fall on man. It is not passive passive or passive active. Man cannot even receive a thing unless it is given to him from above.
Now that I have laid the ground work you will see that the reformation of grace in Protestantism is not necessarily at odds with Catholic Teachings or traditions any more than Catholics are at odds with themselves. It is not the matter of terms but the meaning behind the terms. It is also a matter of giving God the glory of which he is due. It is not tacking on the idea that He is beside or behind us in an action of ours but rather it is his action to begin with in which he is sovereign.
Next, I shall fight for fides formata shortly. Faith formed by love. I shall again side with the Catholics to an extent. This doctrine actually is less of an issue because regeneration could be said to plant a forensic love into someone's heart absolving the issue completely. We love because he first loved us. The heart is no longer cold stone but alive to God. If the seed was planted already, real faith is inevitable. The heart is able to love God but not by its own tries but only by the power of God in response. The question is from what and why does love spring forth?
I know not with any certainty about the above reasoning. It is of natural theolgy. But I believe God has his hand in creating love. It is also a matter of covenantal trust and faith in the promises of Jeremiah 32. This means Faith, trust, and grace must precede for this reason as starting points for love.
I am merely concerned with the beginning of faith, regeneration and new hearts. I see that love is a result caused by true faith and the holy spirit when i read my bible. (It is in fact one of the fruits of the spirit.) Now if you look at the two sides. I seldom see that trusting obedience is made by just good acts of love. Yet I do see good acts of love are made by trusting obediece. Faith alone is the cause but that does not mean the faith is alone. Now who can fault a well if it is drilled and ready to be pumped for little of water output. It is thus with men who have faith yet have not practiced love as much as they aught. As long as it is increasing I cannot find fault. Yet if it is constant, I cannot comment either way. God himself and the motives themselves will have to.
Next, if a good work is to be of any value it will be done in love. Now lets consider love. Catholics have define narrowly love as just doing good works in sanctification. I tell you that Love has many forms. Concern for God's Holiness, Concern for God's Glory, Concern for proclaiming a savior, Concern for truth in God, Concern for God himself. These all promote actions but they first spring from benign forms of love. Saving Faith has no issues with a faith that has these. These lesser forms of love make themself know in acts but one cannot say that the acts are required when it is the source that is required.
A faithless man is not even compelled by God hismelf to be concerned with love anyway. If he is, I venture to say it is for the wrong motives (selfish ones). The reason I still fight what has been turned into an infernal doctrine is that Reciprical Love is a proposed mechanism for the working of irresistible grace at conversion. We are drawn by cords of love. Faith can be formed by love in this sense. It is not our love but God's being worked out in us. We love because he first loved us.
This should not be forgotten either when talking of fides formata. The substance behind fides formata has changed once again. It is no longer protestant terms and catholic terms but rather the things of what constitutes real conversion and how/if it is acheived through love. It is no longer works needed but faith needed first and foremost.
Finally, since fides formata was brought up. I have succeded in making faith a nebuluous concepted. This is because I have included ideas like regeneration and saving faith. I have also run into an issue of broadening its definition. I shall tie of the loose ends by saying I agree with Luther (and the Greeks) that faith is primarily trusting. It is by this trusting that the promises of God are accessible to the redeemed.
This establishes faith, not the love, for salvation. Love is responsive not causal. It is to be done in faith. How can one be drawn by love if the act of love is not trusted? How can one love God without believing that he first loved us. If we do not believe it? Who will. How can faith even with love hold to any anchor if there is no steadfast trusting and the graces of a new birth first. Trusting God and the promises of his Word are the only anchors. Faith must consist of these first and foremost. We do not trust a decision. We do not trust our works. We do not trust our lives. We do not trust of ourselves or the church's goodness for holiness. We trust God's decision. We trust Christs work's. We trust Christ's life. We trust in the Holy spirit's, the spirit of grace, goodness for holiness. In God we trust. (In everything even our money).
There is no middle step of infused grace to cooperate with since this persepctive has cut off any middle view. Finally to be clear again, there is no grace that is infused but rather a spirit of grace that is infused (or rather indwelt in believers). It is of God from beginning to last. It is all of grace. I diverge with any catholic here beyond reconciliation. I also diverge with anyone promoting a fictictious or potential grace. God is real, so is his actions, so is his unmerited grace. Grace is not in the power and ability to do God's will. It is the unmerited favor to actually do God's will. Grace is in fact a part of God's will itself to his glory, bought at the cross by christ. It is unmerited by us, but fully merited by Christ. The actions of Grace are done by working and willing from within us by the Holy spirit alone. The results are aptly called graces too because they are undeserved. So much is undeserved. So much is grace.
The barriers put up on grace only serve to rob God of his glory and Man of his hope of a victorious savior. To offer another grace is to offer another gospel. Man has tried to save himself for ages. He has failed every time. It is really not another gospel for it is not any news at all. To offer another potential grace is to offer something intangible and still bound by sin. To offer real grace is to offer something concrete and unconquerable. Grace is as true and real as the promises from God. In christ everything is yes and amen. See Part 2
Martin Luther had an issue with the relation of traditional (catholic) views of grace with his own. He formed the argument narrowly to exclude established catholic doctrine. Catholic doctrine has things that are considered unbiblical but it would be easier to place the burden upon them by their own beliefs. I say this because I believe in infused grace to a certain extent. A saving faith will show itself by this infusion of grace which works.
I also believe that any grace given is a real grace. My theology would be accurately described as infused grace itself is result of the actions from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit interacts with one's intermost being. This itself is the real grace from God, bought by the blood of christ.
Infused grace by this definition is potentially grace in the sense that it is the means in which God is pleased to use to bring real grace to bare. It is also real grace only in the sense that it was bought and undeserved as well. God wills and works when he sanctifies. He will also effectively do it. It is not fictitious, it is not potential alone, for it is real alone. There is no cooperation in the Catholic or Lutheran sense either for me. I believe that any distinction between the indwelling of the spirit and with Catholicism's infused (potential) grace is false. This breakdown is only a way to give a step for man for an action. Man cannot contribute or he is liable to be taking God's glory. God is more pleased to work through a person than just by them. God shall not share his glory with another. From first to last, it is all of grace, or what is left is all of heresy.
Infused grace (catholic sense) rather than relying upon God, the spirit, says that God has acted, so you must now act. This is rarely seen as the biblical version of God acting through a person. There is no shift between the phases. God who began a good work will surely bring it to completion. Including the good work of sanctification. God acts in it all. It is this kind of instrumentality which is biblical. Infused grace is not this model. In contrast real grace is direct and can be accounted. Any indirect grace with man's required help only serves to place a barrier to this biblical instrumentality. God with the catholic's infused grace does not use his chosen instruments to achieve, rather it relies some other merit or work brought by a person or saint. God merely stands to the side in the glorious acts of holiness and goodness that go on in the church . God is robbed of his glory for working his actions through man. God no longer has done it with his own hand. He has also not contributed anything significant to show if it be not real. This is inconsistent with revealed revelation of scripture. God delights in using men for his goals but not without himself being intimitely involved.
Next, Lets discuss the state of grace in people and what it means to be full of grace. It is infused grace to its fullest, with sanctifying actions of the Spirit to show. It is constantly active faith without the withdrawal into a dry but minimal existence. Sanctifying grace is shed abroad in out hearts for God's glory. Yet, this quantity of the Spirit is still Infused grace with many real actions toward godliness being actual grace. These real actions are nothing less than God's work through us. The Virgin Mary by this definition is in fact very godly. She should be seen as among the holiest and most chaste of women. Blessed indeed. It does not however require a crazy idea of immaculate conception for Mary. It requires only her conversion by the Grace of God and God's continual worked actions in her. It only requires God's continual unmerited favor. This in and of itself is because of god's eternal dealings with man.
The main difference from real and infused grace must therefore lie in the fact that God also cannot be glorified for doing nothing alone. Nothing can't be bought by the blood of Christ. Grace is entirely real and effectual or it lives an imaginary life. Grace cannot have any result but praise and glory by unmerited favor for God himself. Grace cannot have any source for merit if God's work in it is not the only commendable merit in it.
Let me go Eastern Orthodox on you for a sec. Their definition is that grace is God's uncreated energies. This would fit with infused grace to a degree. If this definition were allowed for grace, it fits closely to the issue with infused grace. Yet, I reject that grace is potential alone. This is in error because it has no notion of God acting. God is passive. Man is passive. Like the rays of the sun striking something. The sun doesn't cause the event (knowingly). This analogy at least recognizes the object doesn't really cause the event either. The object can only alter its position to be in its path. This is not the instrumentality of God with which he compels men effectively in a way that is not against their will.
I would disagree and say that grace is rather God's newly created energies/mercies in people by unmerited favor. Granted by the indwelt Holy Ghost who is the Spirit of grace. It is not uncreated but rather fully created energies which actively stream from God and passive fall on man. It is not passive passive or passive active. Man cannot even receive a thing unless it is given to him from above.
Now that I have laid the ground work you will see that the reformation of grace in Protestantism is not necessarily at odds with Catholic Teachings or traditions any more than Catholics are at odds with themselves. It is not the matter of terms but the meaning behind the terms. It is also a matter of giving God the glory of which he is due. It is not tacking on the idea that He is beside or behind us in an action of ours but rather it is his action to begin with in which he is sovereign.
Next, I shall fight for fides formata shortly. Faith formed by love. I shall again side with the Catholics to an extent. This doctrine actually is less of an issue because regeneration could be said to plant a forensic love into someone's heart absolving the issue completely. We love because he first loved us. The heart is no longer cold stone but alive to God. If the seed was planted already, real faith is inevitable. The heart is able to love God but not by its own tries but only by the power of God in response. The question is from what and why does love spring forth?
I know not with any certainty about the above reasoning. It is of natural theolgy. But I believe God has his hand in creating love. It is also a matter of covenantal trust and faith in the promises of Jeremiah 32. This means Faith, trust, and grace must precede for this reason as starting points for love.
I am merely concerned with the beginning of faith, regeneration and new hearts. I see that love is a result caused by true faith and the holy spirit when i read my bible. (It is in fact one of the fruits of the spirit.) Now if you look at the two sides. I seldom see that trusting obedience is made by just good acts of love. Yet I do see good acts of love are made by trusting obediece. Faith alone is the cause but that does not mean the faith is alone. Now who can fault a well if it is drilled and ready to be pumped for little of water output. It is thus with men who have faith yet have not practiced love as much as they aught. As long as it is increasing I cannot find fault. Yet if it is constant, I cannot comment either way. God himself and the motives themselves will have to.
Next, if a good work is to be of any value it will be done in love. Now lets consider love. Catholics have define narrowly love as just doing good works in sanctification. I tell you that Love has many forms. Concern for God's Holiness, Concern for God's Glory, Concern for proclaiming a savior, Concern for truth in God, Concern for God himself. These all promote actions but they first spring from benign forms of love. Saving Faith has no issues with a faith that has these. These lesser forms of love make themself know in acts but one cannot say that the acts are required when it is the source that is required.
A faithless man is not even compelled by God hismelf to be concerned with love anyway. If he is, I venture to say it is for the wrong motives (selfish ones). The reason I still fight what has been turned into an infernal doctrine is that Reciprical Love is a proposed mechanism for the working of irresistible grace at conversion. We are drawn by cords of love. Faith can be formed by love in this sense. It is not our love but God's being worked out in us. We love because he first loved us.
This should not be forgotten either when talking of fides formata. The substance behind fides formata has changed once again. It is no longer protestant terms and catholic terms but rather the things of what constitutes real conversion and how/if it is acheived through love. It is no longer works needed but faith needed first and foremost.
Finally, since fides formata was brought up. I have succeded in making faith a nebuluous concepted. This is because I have included ideas like regeneration and saving faith. I have also run into an issue of broadening its definition. I shall tie of the loose ends by saying I agree with Luther (and the Greeks) that faith is primarily trusting. It is by this trusting that the promises of God are accessible to the redeemed.
This establishes faith, not the love, for salvation. Love is responsive not causal. It is to be done in faith. How can one be drawn by love if the act of love is not trusted? How can one love God without believing that he first loved us. If we do not believe it? Who will. How can faith even with love hold to any anchor if there is no steadfast trusting and the graces of a new birth first. Trusting God and the promises of his Word are the only anchors. Faith must consist of these first and foremost. We do not trust a decision. We do not trust our works. We do not trust our lives. We do not trust of ourselves or the church's goodness for holiness. We trust God's decision. We trust Christs work's. We trust Christ's life. We trust in the Holy spirit's, the spirit of grace, goodness for holiness. In God we trust. (In everything even our money).
There is no middle step of infused grace to cooperate with since this persepctive has cut off any middle view. Finally to be clear again, there is no grace that is infused but rather a spirit of grace that is infused (or rather indwelt in believers). It is of God from beginning to last. It is all of grace. I diverge with any catholic here beyond reconciliation. I also diverge with anyone promoting a fictictious or potential grace. God is real, so is his actions, so is his unmerited grace. Grace is not in the power and ability to do God's will. It is the unmerited favor to actually do God's will. Grace is in fact a part of God's will itself to his glory, bought at the cross by christ. It is unmerited by us, but fully merited by Christ. The actions of Grace are done by working and willing from within us by the Holy spirit alone. The results are aptly called graces too because they are undeserved. So much is undeserved. So much is grace.
The barriers put up on grace only serve to rob God of his glory and Man of his hope of a victorious savior. To offer another grace is to offer another gospel. Man has tried to save himself for ages. He has failed every time. It is really not another gospel for it is not any news at all. To offer another potential grace is to offer something intangible and still bound by sin. To offer real grace is to offer something concrete and unconquerable. Grace is as true and real as the promises from God. In christ everything is yes and amen. See Part 2
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)