toldailytopic: Do good works play a part in your salvation?

[zippy2006]

Maybe you ought to consider the idea that God's understanding is different from your own

That's what the Church of Christ would say to you, the Baptist would say to the Methodists, and almost every Christian faith to the LDS.

What's your point here TH? You sound nearly like a relativist with these sorts of replies. Personally I don't have any qualms about these churches that popped up some 1500 years later. The Orthodox church is a bit different insofar as it can make a plausible case, but the Catholic and Orthodox churches disagree on very little. In any case, the facts about our engagement to Jesus are rather clear if you read that thread of mine.

And zip, we differed on a bit more. For instance, on the thief on the cross and whether one could be saved by faith alone.

I don't think we disagree there. We both believe the thief was saved, I've noted quite a few times in this thread that works are not some sort of absolute necessity for salvation (neither is faith for the particular pagan). And it seems rather clear at this point that by "faith alone" you mean faith working in charity and grace. I don't have a problem saying that a faith grounded in charity and grace is all that is required. 1 Cor 13:2

And I never said that sin exists in Heaven, I addressed the unlikely notion of moral perfection in an imperfect creature. I'd be interested in your explanation of the rebellion of angels in that context.

You didn't? I recall you saying that sin and salvation will coexist and that the absence of sin simply isn't possible for we imperfect creatures. That's half true, hence the new creation, the resurrected body instead of the old man. It seems to be true in this life at least.

re: The rebellion of the angels, or better yet, the garden of Eden. I certainly don't understand the inner workings of free will, but I know that when the angels rebelled they were thrown out, and when Adam disobeyed he was thrown out of Eden. I do think our situation is a bit different, namely the difference between an average 30 year old walking down the street and a 30 year old who was just pardoned from death row. The new Adam is not only set above the old, but even over the angels: 1 Cor 6:3

I don appreciate the clarification on a few dogmatic points of Catholic faith though. :thumb:

Glad to help there :e4e: As far as Catholic theology of grace goes, your position (Molinism) is considered the closest to Pelagianism. I am also Molinistic as far as I understand it. The Thomists and the Calvinists put much more stress on the idea that man is so depraved that he cannot even accept the gift of God's grace by his own power. But Catholicism always holds that man is truly free to accept or reject grace unlike Calvinism with it's irresistible grace.

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

What's your point here TH? You sound nearly like a relativist with these sorts of replies.

No, just a rationalist who recognizes what causes distinctions within the faith.

I don't think we disagree there. We both believe the thief was saved,

I don't hold salvation anything less than a settled condition and that seems a bit important as distinctions go...but it appeared we were differing on a bit regarding the thief's part a little earlier.

I've noted quite a few times in this thread that works are not some sort of absolute necessity for salvation (neither is faith for the particular pagan).

Then why say you work out yours? It's incongruous and muddies the message. It certainly wasn't clear to me in our prior conversations through much of this one.

And it seems rather clear at this point that by "faith alone" you mean faith working in charity and grace.

How does charity enter into it?

You didn't? I recall you saying that sin and salvation will coexist

Quote me.

and that the absence of sin simply isn't possible for we imperfect creatures.

Also, quote me. I don't believe we can or will be perfect creatures. There's only one of those. I'm curious about what the impact of that would be and so my inquiry into the fall.

re: The rebellion of the angels, or better yet, the garden of Eden. I certainly don't understand the inner workings of free will, but I know that when the angels rebelled they were thrown out, and when Adam disobeyed he was thrown out of Eden. I do think our situation is a bit different, namely the difference between an average 30 year old walking down the street and a 30 year old who was just pardoned from death row. The new Adam is not only set above the old, but even over the angels: 1 Cor 6:3

Doesn't explain how angels, dwelling in the presence of God, could rebel. And to be set higher isn't to be inherently superior. It's one of those things I've been puzzling about.

Glad to help there :e4e: As far as Catholic theology of grace goes, your position (Molinism) is considered the closest to Pelagianism. I am also Molinistic as far as I understand it. The Thomists and the Calvinists put much more stress on the idea that man is so depraved that he cannot even accept the gift of God's grace by his own power.

Not sure how closely I resemble a Molinist though given they appear to accept a linear notion of time in relation to the divine, but I'll read a bit more on them.

But Catholicism always holds that man is truly free to accept or reject grace unlike Calvinism with it's irresistible grace.

Same thing in the Episcopal church.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

No, just a rationalist who recognizes what causes distinctions within the faith.


I don't hold salvation anything less than a settled condition and that seems a bit important as distinctions go

But your idea that there is no justification, just salvation, is also rejected by the Protestants. At best they would say that in justification there is a promise made that will necessarily come to fruition, not that one is actually saved at conversion.

But I agree that our difference here is substantial, and yet it doesn't enter into Pelagianism. If I say that a promise is made and that the brides must wait faithfully with their candles (Mt 25:1-5) for their master to return, being always ready (Mt 25:13), that does not imply that the bride has earned the marriage.

Then why say you work out yours? It's incongruous and muddies the message. It certainly wasn't clear to me in our prior conversations through much of this one.

Why did St. Paul say he worked out his? My sin brings me shame. When David's sin was made known to him he put on the sackcloth for days in the same way that a repentant adulterer might precisely because he was a man of God. It's not a matter of trading remorse for forgiveness and therefore salvation, it is a matter of offending your lover. I certainly pray that God will open my eyes to my sin and make me more sensitive to it (as would be quite natural as one grows closer to God). The same prayer is implicit when I ask God to draw me closer to Him. But I am not fearful, for I know God's forgiveness and I seek it, and I also know that mere sins will not separate me from my Father against His omnipotent will. But at the same time I know that there are those who have fallen away, who have turned away from His forgiveness. There are manifold reasons to strengthen a relationship before marriage, but I don't think that they are done for fear that the promised marriage will not take place.

*I'll admit that the line dividing venial sin from mortal sin is fuzzy, but personally I think that the distinction is the same that the Protestant would make concerning one who has faith and one who does not. Not that I think the Protestant position is very clean either. :chuckle:

But a serious difference between Catholics and Protestants is that Protestants will generally focus on the Bridegroom (sola fide, eyes on Jesus) whereas Catholics will do that as well as focus on their sin, look at themselves and their neighbor. I think that is one reason why Catholics are generally more open to secondary grace than Protestants; why Catholics are slower to condemn things in the world as contrary to the Faith (I am thinking here of Puritanism, Calvinism, Jansenism, etc.). I guess I'd say they are "more open to God working in mysterious ways," which is precisely why they are more open to works being nuggets of grace that feed us and also give us a chance to grow in God's love. The denial of Sola Scriptura, the large array of religious orders, the global liturgy that is also reflective of particular cultures all come to mind here as far as being more open to God's mysterious will goes.

How does charity enter into it?

It baptizes the faith as a living faith rather than dead faith. It is an active participation in the Gospel rather than a recitation of the propositions. It is always present in a faith that bears fruit. "If I have faith to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing."

You didn't? I recall you saying that sin and salvation will coexist

Quote me.

and that the absence of sin simply isn't possible for we imperfect creatures.

Also, quote me. I don't believe we can or will be perfect creatures.

How's that for a quote? You don't think we will be perfect creatures, therefore you think we will sin in Heaven. That's not a stretch is it?

Doesn't explain how angels, dwelling in the presence of God, could rebel. And to be set higher isn't to be inherently superior. It's one of those things I've been puzzling about.

It's an interesting question, but I don't perceive a contradiction in it. Half of your question is the same as the garden of Eden and "How can an all-good God's creation have evil in it?" The answer to the other half seems intuitive to me even on earth. The first shall be last and the last first. The repentance of the greatest sinner results in the largest fountain of love. Look at Luke 15:1-32, especially Luke 15:7, 10, 32. Apparently that "inherent superiority" isn't so important to God. :idunno:

Not sure how closely I resemble a Molinist though given they appear to accept a linear notion of time in relation to the divine, but I'll read a bit more on them.

I doubt it: the Church was been pretty clear on that point long before Molinism was born. In fact Molinist (and all Catholic) Predestination requires that "non-linear notion of time." Basically they say that God foreknows our choices precisely because we make the choice we make and by no other means. That God's knowledge of our free choices is logically secondary to our making the choice and that therefore God knows the temporal future in a somewhat roundabout way. I may have slaughtered that, but Evo would be better than I for it. I don't fully understand the opposing position, Thomism, since the differences delve very deep into metaphysics and I don't understand Thomistic metaphysics well enough to understand it. In any event it denies the "roundabout" knowledge of God and inserts a more direct knowledge as the Mover of all things, including free acts. (note that this intersects our current topic precisely when one of those Foreknown choices involves acceptance or rejection of grace)

Point is: Molinism tends to a very unimpeded freedom on the part of the human. They would be more apt to say that the human accepts the gift of grace without so much help from God, though still admitting that the grace of God prepares the way for that acceptance.

Chesterton wrote well in Orthodoxy of the Catholic Church being a prime example of "not erring to the left nor the right." Unfortunately with that comes an enormous number of distinctions and qualifications.

Same thing in the Episcopal church.

:thumb:

:e4e:

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

But your idea that there is no justification, just salvation, is also rejected by the Protestants.

Rather, as I understand it, salvation is what occurs because we have faith and rest in Christ. Justification by faith alone is very much a part of my thinking...by which I mean it is through faith and not works that a man finds salvation, which I then hold is found in the moment of reliance. Where that places me, theologically speaking, I have no idea nor particular care, to be honest, unless that knowledge would impart something of value for my walk, which I have a tendency to doubt. :chuckle:

At best they would say that in justification there is a promise made that will necessarily come to fruition, not that one is actually saved at conversion.

Then I think they have a real problem with that thief on the cross.

But I agree that our difference here is substantial, and yet it doesn't enter into Pelagianism. If I say that a promise is made and that the brides must wait faithfully with their candles (Mt 25:1-5) for their master to return, being always ready (Mt 25:13), that does not imply that the bride has earned the marriage.

Wait for what then? What is it you think God has not done prior to that reliance? What is it you believe wasn't accomplished in the cross and sacrifice of Christ?

Why did St. Paul say he worked out his?

I think of that as the process of walking with God and growing in wisdom, which brings with it a greater understanding of our failing and reliance, along with a strengthening of spirit and a deepening of appreciation. But then, if you can reject that you can, through a work, destroy Christ's work...a notion I reject. Now I understand that's probably the reason for the idea of delayed salvation, but I think it runs afoul of reason and the thief's example.

My sin brings me shame. When David's sin was made known to him he put on the sackcloth for days in the same way that a repentant adulterer might precisely because he was a man of God.

It's human to despise failing in ourselves.

...But I am not fearful, for I know God's forgiveness and I seek it, and I also know that mere sins will not separate me from my Father against His omnipotent will.

Where I'd say continuing to seek a thing you've already been given is problematic.

But at the same time I know that there are those who have fallen away, who have turned away from His forgiveness.

I'd say there were those who loved God with reservation, placed something between that love and Him, valued something more than that relationship and, eventually, that reservation destroyed an imperfect thing, as it must. To love God without reservation, abiding in trust is to be unassailable in faith. Not immune to tragedy or self doubt or struggle, but to be removed from the possibility of that rejection. There's nothing in this life I love as much as God. And with that love comes trust. I cannot trust and doubt God, so I reserve my doubts where they should be properly placed.

*I'll admit that the line dividing venial sin from mortal sin is fuzzy, but personally I think that the distinction is the same that the Protestant would make concerning one who has faith and one who does not. Not that I think the Protestant position is very clean either. :chuckle:

:chuckle:

It baptizes the faith as a living faith rather than dead faith.

How? What is it you're literally talking about here? That sounds interesting, but I have no real idea what you mean by it.

It is an active participation in the Gospel rather than a recitation of the propositions.

Then I see a problem with the thief, whose brief life of faith involved nothing more than recognition and reliance. What am I missing in this, or how do you see it differently?

How's that for a quote? You don't think we will be perfect creatures, therefore you think we will sin in Heaven. That's not a stretch is it?

It's an assumption, which is equally dangerous. Imperfection isn't sin. And many an imperfect man routinely denies temptation on a daily basis while still falling to willful disobedience within that same day. Now remove the tree from the Garden and how does Adam sin?

Just kicking this thing around. Still haven't found a satisfactory answer on it, externally or internally.

Re: sin in Heaven and the fall.

It's an interesting question, but I don't perceive a contradiction in it.

Disobedience is sin, no? The fall was the result of disobedience, yes? And the fall was by creatures dwelling where? So if the proposition is that disobedience is impossible in Heaven I see a problem without an obvious resolution.

Half of your question is the same as the garden of Eden and "How can an all-good God's creation have evil in it?"

I don't think that it did--only the potential for it.

The answer to the other half seems intuitive to me even on earth. The first shall be last and the last first. The repentance of the greatest sinner results in the largest fountain of love. Look at Luke 15:1-32, especially Luke 15:7, 10, 32. Apparently that "inherent superiority" isn't so important to God. :idunno:

Well, I did say I didn't put stock in an interpretation of inherent superiority. I don't see an answer for me in this though...or fully in my own thoughts.

I doubt it: the Church was been pretty clear on that point long before Molinism was born. In fact Molinist (and all Catholic) Predestination requires that "non-linear notion of time."

That wasn't how I read it. The Molinists believe in foreknowledge, which doesn't jibe with my understanding of time in relation to God.

Point is: Molinism tends to a very unimpeded freedom on the part of the human. They would be more apt to say that the human accepts the gift of grace without so much help from God, though still admitting that the grace of God prepares the way for that acceptance.

I believe God calls every man, but the choice to answer is ours. I'm not sure how completely comfortably Molinism sits with that.

I've been meaning to read Chesterton. I've been told I'd find his perspective amenable.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

Rather, as I understand it, salvation is what occurs because we have faith and rest in Christ. Justification by faith alone is very much a part of my thinking...by which I mean it is through faith and not works that a man finds salvation, which I then hold is found in the moment of reliance. Where that places me, theologically speaking, I have no idea nor particular care, to be honest, unless that knowledge would impart something of value for my walk, which I have a tendency to doubt. :chuckle:

Fair enough, though it does tend to help in communication.

At best they would say that in justification there is a promise made that will necessarily come to fruition, not that one is actually saved at conversion.

Then I think they have a real problem with that thief on the cross.

Is this some kind of trick to get me to defend Protestants? :noid:

I don't think they have a problem there. The promise was made and it came to fruition. Faster than some, true, but that shouldn't pose a problem... :idunno:

But I agree that our difference here is substantial, and yet it doesn't enter into Pelagianism. If I say that a promise is made and that the brides must wait faithfully with their candles (Mt 25:1-5) for their master to return, being always ready (Mt 25:13), that does not imply that the bride has earned the marriage.

Wait for what then? What is it you think God has not done prior to that reliance? What is it you believe wasn't accomplished in the cross and sacrifice of Christ?

Christ did not create a Heaven on earth as the Jews thought He might. He gave we Gentiles a reason to hope, but "hope for what?" you say. Christ opened a door, He showed us the Way, the Truth, and the Light, but we still must enter. We who are justified and engaged are still sinful. We still willingly separate ourselves from God, we fail to love and to follow Christ. The reason for hope is the resurrection, being joined with God.

The cross said "I do not mind if you are sinners, come to me anyway. Even if you crucify Life Itself My arms will remain open to you the entire time." But the acceptance of that gift implies a desire to be forgiven and to change, to convert, to repent, to "turn around." The fulfillment of that desire--the reality of which causes us to turn to the cross--is our hope. And it is a hope encouraged by God; sanctification and union with God are essentially the same thing. We turn to the cross because we are sinners (because we are separated from God by our sin), and we hope for much the same reason, if in a rather different way. The first was shame and despair in sin, the second is a desire to better love our Lover, our Savior.

I think of that as the process of walking with God and growing in wisdom, which brings with it a greater understanding of our failing and reliance, along with a strengthening of spirit and a deepening of appreciation.

So far so good, though you often leave out that idea of progress, of growing objectively closer to God. Moses walked with God, he grew in wisdom, he understood his reliance, but when he came down from the mountain his face was changed. Being so close to God and remaining sinful would be like jumping into water and remaining dry.

But then, if you can reject that you can, through a work, destroy Christ's work...a notion I reject.

But we are not forced to accept Christ's work. The rejection of a gift, the dismissal of a promise, does not undo the reality of the gift offered. I can't make heads or tails of your position here. :idunno: It seems tied up in your notion that Christ's gift was somehow an offer of immediate salvation rather than an opened door and a promise.

"It is finished" was spoken independently of man's free choice. Christ's work was to make clear to man that he has this option, to make clear to him that this door is open. Man still must respond. A man who rejects the offer no more controls Christ's work than a man who accepts the promise before renigging.

Now I understand that's probably the reason for the idea of delayed salvation, but I think it runs afoul of reason and the thief's example.

I think the reason for the delayed salvation is 1) Biblical. God always made a covenant and a promise, but never actually made it to the marriage step since the bride was always unfaithful. We are to hope, and Jesus tells us about the gate of Heaven and that He has gone to prepare a place for us (referring to the consummation of the marriage promise) 2) Commonsensical. We still sin, we still struggle, we do not see God face to face.

My sin brings me shame. When David's sin was made known to him he put on the sackcloth for days in the same way that a repentant adulterer might precisely because he was a man of God.

It's human to despise failing in ourselves.

But grace turns us to God rather than to despair. Both Peter and Judas despised their failing.

Where I'd say continuing to seek a thing you've already been given is problematic.

But I am not joined with God, I am a sinner. I'd say your idea that you love God and yet constantly do things which are directly opposed to that love and yet think that you are in a sort of end-state or full communion with God is problematic. We do not have life in full here on earth.

I'd say there were those who loved God with reservation, placed something between that love and Him, valued something more than that relationship and, eventually, that reservation destroyed an imperfect thing, as it must. To love God without reservation, abiding in trust is to be unassailable in faith. Not immune to tragedy or self doubt or struggle, but to be removed from the possibility of that rejection. There's nothing in this life I love as much as God. And with that love comes trust. I cannot trust and doubt God, so I reserve my doubts where they should be properly placed.

The person with reservations is a sinner; the sinner does not love God without reservation; and we are all sinners. I do not doubt God, I doubt myself. I'm also not fond of the "there's me and there's them" distinction you introduce. There's nothing you love as much as God, but there are other things you love which are opposed to God. These are things which we apparently feel are not problematic enough to concern us. The Pharisee claims to love God as much as the fisherman.

But I agree that we should not doubt God.

It is an active participation in the Gospel rather than a recitation of the propositions.

Then I see a problem with the thief, whose brief life of faith involved nothing more than recognition and reliance. What am I missing in this, or how do you see it differently?

Are you saying that the right vowels strung together will effect salvation?

The thief didn't just talk, he repented, he understood. I guess the charity comes after the receiving, the repentance. But in that repentance is implied the will to do better. In short, the thief responded to grace and was justified by his repentance. Faith is certainly tied in; you don't ask forgiveness from someone who you have no faith in.

Imperfection isn't sin. And many an imperfect man routinely denies temptation on a daily basis while still falling to willful disobedience within that same day.

I don't know that I agree. Can you describe the area you believe is imperfect but not sinful?

Just kicking this thing around. Still haven't found a satisfactory answer on it, externally or internally.

Me neither

Re: sin in Heaven and the fall.

Disobedience is sin, no? The fall was the result of disobedience, yes? And the fall was by creatures dwelling where? So if the proposition is that disobedience is impossible in Heaven I see a problem without an obvious resolution.

But I've noted the difference between us and the angels, so I don't think you argument is convincing.

I don't think that it did--only the potential for it.

The answer to the other half seems intuitive to me even on earth. The first shall be last and the last first. The repentance of the greatest sinner results in the largest fountain of love. Look at Luke 15:1-32, especially Luke 15:7, 10, 32. Apparently that "inherent superiority" isn't so important to God.

Well, I did say I didn't put stock in an interpretation of inherent superiority. I don't see an answer for me in this though...or fully in my own thoughts.

I'm not claiming to solve the mystery, only your particular hangup. Adam fell from Eden, but we are different from Adam. Redeemed sinners are very different from unfallen beings, no?

Maybe we can fall from Heaven, who knows? :idunno: It really depends on the nature of free will relative to our union with God. But personally I doubt these questions will make much sense in Heaven. I don't think life will be remotely the same.

That wasn't how I read it. The Molinists believe in foreknowledge, which doesn't jibe with my understanding of time in relation to God.

Er, I think you're just confusing lingo a bit there. All theologians use the word "foreknowledge" whether or not they believe God experiences time in the same way we do or not. It certainly isn't etymologically sound. :chuckle: Catholics believe that time is a creation and that God is outside of it. Does that clarify it? I don't think freedom and foreknowledge are compatible else, and we believe both. By 'foreknowledge' I mean that God knows everything, even events which are "future events" according to our temporal perspective.

I believe God calls every man, but the choice to answer is ours. I'm not sure how completely comfortably Molinism sits with that.

Right, I understand that. My point is that, in Catholic theology, your position represents one of the most "Pelagian" positions allowable. Molinists are often accused of Pelagianism and you and I would receive the same accusations for the same reasons. For example, AMR probably sees your position as at least semi-Pelagian because you believe that the human being has within himself the power to recognize the good gift and accept it. In the larger picture, our two views are qualitatively equivalent and differ only in degree. So in that qualitative sense your view is Molinistic, but Catholic theology does not see conversion as equivalent to salvation. Basically, if we just look at the man and what he is capable of, we are on precisely the same page, and that in itself proves that we are in the same boat with respect to Pelagianism. We differ only in how often man "must" (bad word) exercise that capacity.

I've been meaning to read Chesterton. I've been told I'd find his perspective amenable.

I'm surprised you haven't. I think you'd enjoy him, he has some fun books too, fiction and whatnot. But his writing style is entertaining and engaging, even in his dryer material.

:e4e:

:e4e:

 

[Tambora]

toldailytopic: Do good works play a part in your salvation?

My works? No.
Works of Christ? Yes.

 

[kmoney]

That's the question.

TH started out by saying that I think I can earn salvation by my own efforts and ended by saying that salvation must be wholly uncontrollable--humans cannot control it in the least negative or positive way. I noted in my last post that the uncontrollable idea is simply a Calvinistic Election and is incorrect.

But Pelagianism is different for different people. AMR would probably say that Calvinism and Pelagianism are the only two options at bottom. I would say (along with Catholicism) that there is a middle position where the human can freely choose to either accept or reject grace as gift. (simplified but essentially accurate) I think a Calvinist would call Catholics Pelagians or semi-Pelagians.

:e4e:

:think: If AMR would say that everything essentially boils down to Calvinism or Pelagianism, I might agree. I'm not sure I see much of a difference between the middle ground you propose and Pelagianism. :idunno:

Here is the opening paragraph on the Wiki article on Pelagianism:

Pelagianism is a theological theory named after Pelagius (AD 354 – AD 420/440), although he denied, at least at some point in his life, many of the doctrines associated with his name. It is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to original sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example) as well as providing an atonement for our sins. In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for obeying the Gospel in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, because humans are sinners by choice, they are therefore criminals who need the atonement of Jesus Christ. Sinners are not victims, they are criminals who need pardon.

There isn't much in there I would disagree with. :idunno: What do you see is wrong?

However, if Pelagianism means that we earn salvation or that we effect our own salvation then I would disagree, and perhaps I would just be a semi-pelagianist.

Would you say Catholicism is semi-Pelagianism?

Hi kmo. In a nutshell: a man may accept grace by an act of will, but that acceptance should not be confused with a meritorious act any more than taking a five dollar bill offered you should be construed as in some part earning it. Past that point I believe you are no longer your own, that you can no more reject salvation than you can change your DNA. I'm not suggesting an absence of reward differing among the faithful any more than I'd suggest we shouldn't perform good works/yield good fruit, but zip and I differ on why we should do that...just as we differ on our ownership past the point where we find ourselves in the company of the thief on the cross, in parallel. I would say the Catholic stance is necessarily semi Pelagian, though I understand the Catholic position to be that meritorious works accrue only to those acting in a state of grace. My part differs from the Calvinist position in that I believe every man is called and all are free to embrace the cross. I think a confusion over God and time has led to a great deal of fruitless and harmful distinction among the various camps, but that's another thread.

:e4e:

In some aspects salvation is a gift and there are passages, mostly Pauline, that speak to that, but I think speaking of it as just accepting a gift misses the covenant aspect of it and it ignores a lot of passages that speak to us having a role to play. And I am not OSAS so I believe that the gift can be rejected even after accepting it.

I agree with you that Catholic teaching is at least semi-Pelagianism.

I've been a bit confused by the focus on the thief on the cross and I'm not sure what factor it plays in the discussion. He is an exception, not the rule, because most people don't begin to follow Christ immediately before their death. He didn't have any "works"; he was dead. I think it's a bit confusing to attempt to separate faith and works.

 

[Town Heretic]

...I've been a bit confused by the focus on the thief on the cross and I'm not sure what factor it plays in the discussion. He is an exception, not the rule, because most people don't begin to follow Christ immediately before their death.

The point was to illustrate what is (and by inference what is not) necessary for salvation. The thief professed and relied and was rewarded with an unconditional promise of being with Christ in paradise on that very day.

That's my theological position in a nutshell.

 

[kmoney]

The point was to illustrate what is (and by inference what is not) necessary for salvation. The thief professed and relied and was rewarded with an unconditional promise of being with Christ in paradise on that very day.

That's my theological position in a nutshell.

And my point is that I don't think too much should be based on the thief's example. Most people don't die immediately after professing faith in God and Jesus.

:e4e:

 

[serpentdove]

some overlook the need to work

First, get saved. Then, you "good" works will matter (Ro 3:20; Ga 2:16). :thumb:

"Works! works! A man gets to heaven by works! I would as soon think of climbing to the moon on a rope of sand." ~ George Whitefield

See:

George Whitefield: Sensational Evangelist of Britain and America

 

[zippy2006]

:think: If AMR would say that everything essentially boils down to Calvinism or Pelagianism, I might agree. I'm not sure I see much of a difference between the middle ground you propose and Pelagianism. :idunno:

Here is the opening paragraph on the Wiki article on Pelagianism:

There isn't much in there I would disagree with. :idunno: What do you see is wrong?

However, if Pelagianism means that we earn salvation or that we effect our own salvation then I would disagree, and perhaps I would just be a semi-pelagianist.

durrr, stop asking these hard questions

No doubt Pelagianism has some valid points, but it is an extreme that the Church denies. Of course it affirms that man's sin is his own responsibility and that man has free will and the like. What it disagrees with is (from the wikipedia article on semipelagianism) :

Semipelagian thought stands in contrast to the earlier Pelagian teaching about salvation (in which man is seen as effecting his own salvation), which had been dismissed as heresy.

Would you say Catholicism is semi-Pelagianism?

No, (from the same article) :

Semipelagianism in its original form was developed as a compromise between Pelagianism and the teaching of Church Fathers such as Saint Augustine, who taught that man cannot come to God without the grace of God. In Semipelagian thought, therefore, a distinction is made between the beginning of faith and the increase of faith. Semipelagian thought teaches that the latter half - growing in faith - is the work of God, while the beginning of faith is an act of free will, with grace supervening only later.[1] It too was labeled heresy by the Western Church in the Second Council of Orange in 529.

The Roman Catholic Church condemns semipelagianism but affirms that the beginning of faith involves an act of free will. It teaches that the initiative comes from God, but requires free synergy (collaboration) on the part of man: "God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. the fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration".[2] "Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life."[3]

...it's a bit complicated, but the Church denies even semipelagianism, and yet it affirms that the free choice of man is a necessary part of salvation. I'm not overly comfortable on this topic though, and Evo is much better at splitting the theological hairs that are necessary to proceed. :chuckle: Basically the reason that these are thought of as heretical today is because the Church decided so when they came up.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

And my point is that I don't think too much should be based on the thief's example. Most people don't die immediately after professing faith in God and Jesus.

:e4e:

I think that's a good point to keep in mind. I noted to TH a few times the fact that we both believe a man can be saved without faith (such as in the case of the 'virtuous' pagan who has never heard of Christ). It does seem like a bit of an exception, but not completely.

 

[kmoney]

durrr, stop asking these hard questions

:devil:

No doubt Pelagianism has some valid points, but it is an extreme that the Church denies. Of course it affirms that man's sin is his own responsibility and that man has free will and the like. What it disagrees with is (from the wikipedia article on semipelagianism) :

Semipelagian thought stands in contrast to the earlier Pelagian teaching about salvation (in which man is seen as effecting his own salvation), which had been dismissed as heresy.​

Yes, I saw that quote also. I wasn't sure what "effecting his own salvation" meant, exactly. What do you think it means?

No, (from the same article) :

Semipelagianism in its original form was developed as a compromise between Pelagianism and the teaching of Church Fathers such as Saint Augustine, who taught that man cannot come to God without the grace of God. In Semipelagian thought, therefore, a distinction is made between the beginning of faith and the increase of faith. Semipelagian thought teaches that the latter half - growing in faith - is the work of God, while the beginning of faith is an act of free will, with grace supervening only later.[1] It too was labeled heresy by the Western Church in the Second Council of Orange in 529.

The Roman Catholic Church condemns semipelagianism but affirms that the beginning of faith involves an act of free will. It teaches that the initiative comes from God, but requires free synergy (collaboration) on the part of man: "God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. the fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration".[2] "Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life."[3]​

So Catholic teaching says that God takes the first step by making it possible for a person to have faith in God?
If so, does God do that in all people? And at what point does it happen?

...it's a bit complicated, but the Church denies even semipelagianism, and yet it affirms that the free choice of man is a necessary part of salvation. I'm not overly comfortable on this topic though, and Evo is much better at splitting the theological hairs that are necessary to proceed. :chuckle:

I try not to split hairs. Things shouldn't be so technical. :think:

Basically the reason that these are thought of as heretical today is because the Church decided so when they came up.

If only I cared about what the Church called a heresy. :nananana:

:e4e:

:cheers:

 

[zippy2006]

Merton

Merton

I wanted to quote two Merton passages I read today that seem relevant to the conversation. They are taken from The Inner Experience.

I think this ties into a possible problem with sola fide (page 104) :

One thing the existentialist and the contemplative have in common is their refusal to base their lives entirely on the passive acceptance of words which purport to describe essences with which no one is really concerned. The Protestant theologian Paul Tillich has been treated as a radical because he defined faith as an "ultimate concern." But in this frankly existentialist definition he was doubtless reacting against the complacent way in which pious folk have more and more come to use the formulas and concepts of revealed religion in order to avoid concern. Ours is an age of decadent (and I hope renascent) religion. Our contemporaries, especially those who have gone in for popular religion, have often reduced faith to a comfortable assent to slogans without meaning. In assuming the reality of essences and beings that could not be verified by scientific experiment, too many have merely freed themselves from any sense of responsibility to a vague God Who, they were told, existed and took care of these important matters Himself. The ordinary person should occupy himself frankly and completely with a secular existence, moneymaking, pleasure, and success. His prudent excursions into the realm of the sacred should be limited to a few prayers and communal gestures that were necessary to bring God to his aid in achieving secular purposes. Such "faith" is of course merely a modern superstition, and Tillich's definition was probably framed to exclude it entirely from serious consideration.

And this one is helpful to me in understanding that ontological relation between human freedom, God's will, and the Fall (page 112) :

Here again, we notice a deep symbolic wisdom in Patristic interpretations of the story of the Fall in Genesis. This indeed is the forbidden tree: this tree of self, which grows in the middle of Paradise, but which we ourselves are not supposed to see or notice. All the other trees are there, and they refresh us with their fruits. Of them we can be aware, and they are there to be enjoyed for the love of God. But if we become aware of ourselves, turn back too much upon ourselves, and seek to rest in ourselves, then we take the fruit that was forbidden us: we become "as gods, knowing good and evil," for we find division within ourselves and are cut off from external reality at the same time. The "nothingness" within us--which is at the same time the place where our freedom springs into being--is secretly filled with the presence and light of God as long as our eyes are not on ourselves. And then our freedom is united with the freedom of God Himself. Nothing can impede the joy and creativity of our acts of love. But when we look at the source of freedom within us, become too conscious of it, examine it, and subject it to planned and conscious mastery, then the presence and power of God withdraw (for God does not want to be seen at work), and we remain confronted with our own nothingness. At that precise moment, we lose our freedom and become the captives of anxiety.

Not sure if that helps with the angel/Adam scenario or not. Percy says much the same thing in Lost in the Cosmos.

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

And my point is that I don't think too much should be based on the thief's example.

And I'd say either it was sufficient, in which case you can't make too much of it, or it wasn't, in which case Christ was mistaken.

Most people don't die immediately after professing faith in God and Jesus.

Never the point, kmo. Unless you feel that there are different rules governing the salvation of some.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

Yes, I saw that quote also. I wasn't sure what "effecting his own salvation" meant, exactly. What do you think it means?

I think it means that a man does not need grace to avoid sin and walk with God.

It seems to me that Semipelagianism agrees that man needs grace for salvation but claims that he can initiate the thing on his own, apart from grace; that he can accept the gift of grace by his own power without any help from God.

I think TH might say that from a logical standpoint Semipelagianism and Catholicism (and his view) are essentially the same since free will is retained and Pelagianism avoided. I would sort of agree, but I think the theological distinction is true and important and Biblical all the same.

So Catholic teaching says that God takes the first step by making it possible for a person to have faith in God?
If so, does God do that in all people? And at what point does it happen?

See, these are precisely the questions that you might ask Evo.

But I understand Catholic teaching to respond to your three questions in this way:

1. Yes, that's essentially right
2. Yes, though this should not be imagined as a sort of inert force. God actively and personally extends this invitation to each person.
3. It clearly happens on the 7th second of the 7th minute of the 7th hour of the 7th day of the 7th week of the 7th month of the 7th year of their life.

If only I cared about what the Church called a heresy. :nananana:

...why you little...! :IA:

:cheers:

lain:

 

[kmoney]

And I'd say either it was sufficient, in which case you can't make too much of it, or it wasn't, in which case Christ was mistaken.

It was sufficient for him. A profession of faith was all that could be expected from the thief and God accepted it.

Never the point, kmo. Unless you feel that there are different rules governing the salvation of some.

:e4e:

I suppose I do, in a way. Each person and their circumstances are unique and I believe a just God will take that into account. Whether it is a person who has never heard the gospel (zippy mentioned) or a thief on a cross or someone who was raised in a Christian home and is a believer their entire life. Jesus said to take up our own crosses. What that cross is will be different for each person. The thief's cross could be nothing but a profession of belief and faith. People who are a believer their entire life will have a different one to bear.

I've recently read some NT Wright and I really enjoyed it. He speaks in terms of joining the kingdom of God. Of bringing the the will of God on earth as it is in heaven. That is the Christian's calling. Yes, some "works" will flow from gratitude as you say but I think it is more than that and I think to say otherwise can err to closely to "cheap grace".

 

[kmoney]

I think it means that a man does not need grace to avoid sin and walk with God.

It seems to me that Semipelagianism agrees that man needs grace for salvation but claims that he can initiate the thing on his own, apart from grace; that he can accept the gift of grace by his own power without any help from God.

What exactly does the grace of God do? What happens in a person that allows them to have faith?

I think TH might say that from a logical standpoint Semipelagianism and Catholicism (and his view) are essentially the same since free will is retained and Pelagianism avoided. I would sort of agree, but I think the theological distinction is true and important and Biblical all the same.

I don't see any difference between Catholic teaching and semi-pelagianism. :idunno:

See, these are precisely the questions that you might ask Evo.

If Evo was here I would.

But I understand Catholic teaching to respond to your three questions in this way:

1. Yes, that's essentially right
2. Yes, though this should not be imagined as a sort of inert force. God actively and personally extends this invitation to each person.

If God takes that step in all people then again I'm not really sure what the real, practical difference between Pelagianism and Catholic teaching is. For practical purposes they are the same. Each person makes a decision to follow God or not. It's just that in Catholic teaching God makes that choice possible. It would seem that the only point in saying God makes the choice possible is to keep some remnant of the doctrine of original sin. Unless I'm missing something, which is possible. :noid:

3. It clearly happens on the 7th second of the 7th minute of the 7th hour of the 7th day of the 7th week of the 7th month of the 7th year of their life.

:chuckle:
But what about those who don't live that long? :shocked:

...why you little...! :IA:

You were going to call me a little heretic, right? Or something else?

lain:

:comeout:

 

[zippy2006]

What exactly does the grace of God do? What happens in a person that allows them to have faith?

I think the idea is that depravity is such as that we are in pitch blackness, we can't even see far enough to spot the gift offered or even look for it. So we are given something of a light that we may see it and, if we so choose, desire it. But that could happen at really any moment. Not the greatest answer, but I can't say much more on it.

I don't see any difference between Catholic teaching and semi-pelagianism. :idunno:

Why not? Catholics believe that at conversion grace has already been working in us that we might convert.

If God takes that step in all people then again I'm not really sure what the real, practical difference between Pelagianism and Catholic teaching is.

Right, I noted above that the difference isn't seen so much from certain angles. But there is certainly a practical difference between someone who thinks they freely accepted Christ on their own terms and someone who thinks that God's grace was working in them even before their acceptance, working with their freedom and allowing them to make that choice.

For practical purposes they are the same. Each person makes a decision to follow God or not. It's just that in Catholic teaching God makes that choice possible. It would seem that the only point in saying God makes the choice possible is to keep some remnant of the doctrine of original sin. Unless I'm missing something, which is possible. :noid:

I think the distinction is Biblical and true, as I noted in my last post. The two situations are actually quite different. It more of a practical than theoretical distinction imo. To say that the man accepts on his own power with no help from God is simply false and unBiblical, which is why we don't hold it.

:chuckle:
But what about those who don't live that long? :shocked:

Touche :think:

You were going to call me a little heretic, right? Or something else?

It was a question phrased via ebonics lain:

:comeout:

:banana:

 

[kmoney]

I think the idea is that depravity is such as that we are in pitch blackness, we can't even see far enough to spot the gift offered or even look for it. So we are given something of a light that we may see it and, if we so choose, desire it. But that could happen at really any moment. Not the greatest answer, but I can't say much more on it.

To me that is basically a non-answer. :idunno: Now instead of asking what it means for God to give grace I have to ask what it means for God to give someone light. A man can make thousands of decisions and actions but somehow he can't make one particular choice, to follow God, unless God does some particular thing in that person which allows them to do it, but we aren't sure what that thing is.

Why not? Catholics believe that at conversion grace has already been working in us that we might convert.

Never mind. I misread something in semi-pelagianism. I see the difference now. :e4e:

Right, I noted above that the difference isn't seen so much from certain angles. But there is certainly a practical difference between someone who thinks they freely accepted Christ on their own terms and someone who thinks that God's grace was working in them even before their acceptance, working with their freedom and allowing them to make that choice.

I'm not sure there is much of a practical difference. In both cases the person is making a choice. And since God provides that initial grace to everyone, everyone is starting from the same ground.

I think the distinction is Biblical and true, as I noted in my last post. The two situations are actually quite different. It more of a practical than theoretical distinction imo. To say that the man accepts on his own power with no help from God is simply false and unBiblical, which is why we don't hold it.

Ah, so it's one of those biblical doctrines that no one can really explain or understand. :think:

It was a question phrased via ebonics lain:

So you axed a question?

:banana:

:juggle: