Can a protestant tell me what this is from and what its talking about

[guanophore]

I did not infer that you defined works as anything… I simply wanted to make a point on a subject that seems to be misunderstood by many. On the question of Mother Theresa…this point may be moot unless someone can give an example of an atheist who actually did perform acts on a par with Mother Theresa.

I think this may be too far off topic here. The issue is not whether the atheist performed “acts on par” with anyone. Those who do not know Christ are judged in the light of their own conscience - whether they did what they knew in their heart was right for them to do in life. They are measured against the standard of God’s Law that is written upon their hearts. It may be only one deed, such as laying down one’s life for another out of love.

 

[ignatius777]

I think this may be too far off topic here. The issue is not whether the atheist performed “acts on par” with anyone. Those who do not know Christ are judged in the light of their own conscience - whether they did what they knew in their heart was right for them to do in life. They are measured against the standard of God’s Law that is written upon their hearts. It may be only one deed, such as laying down one’s life for another out of love.

Excellent post!!!

 

[jwright82]

I think that to answer the OP and frame this discussion in the Calvinist light the WCF puts it in, we must again look at the Covenant perspective here. The relation of faith and works can be tricky but from the right Covenental perspective it makes sense. The elect are brought into the Covenant of Grace on two grounds, objective and subjective Justification.

Objective Justification is when God in His tribunal declares the sinner to be just in his sight because of what Christ has acomplished through His active, living a perfect life, and passive, paying for our sins, rightousness. This pardon doesn’t mean anything to the prisoner until his prison doors our open and he is let free. This is subjective Justification and is where faith comes in. This what is meant by Justification by faith alone, we are subjectivly Justified by faith alone. We are Objectivly Justified by Christ alone through grace alone.

Now this Justified person is regenerated and made alive in Christ, he is a new man. In a larger scope the purpose of redemption, which Justification is a part, is to restore a Covenant people to God. So now this Justified person is part of the Covenant community of God. How you get in (Redemption/Justification) and stay in (Perseverance/Sanctification) is by God’s grace alone. But being in the Covenant of Grace requires us to preform good works of love in graditude to what God has acomplished for us. So in this light good works have no forensic or debt paying element to them, we don’t have the problem of linking good works to faith because we see them both in light of the Covenant of Grace.

Now because we are still in possession of a sin nature we will fall short of perfection. Some Covenant members will and have commited such greivous sins as to deserve excomunication, which removes someone from the visible Covenant community. This is where the quote from the OP is somewhat refering to. Covenat breakers in scripture have always incurred the wrath of God, thuis is what the OP is refering to. We don’t understand punishments of Covenant members in a forensic or debt paying sense, it seemed that some people were thinking in that way about the wording. As a Covenant member, who is made a member purely by grace, there are ethical obligations in response to grace that are expected of us. That is the foundation of good works.

I hope that clarifies the Confession. It can be confusing to understand what is being is said unless you know the over arching context in which it all makes sense. Catholocism is no different. I must understand the big picture if I am to understand the individual pieces of theology.

 

[ignatius777]

I think that to answer the OP and frame this discussion in the Calvinist light the WCF puts it in, we must again look at the Covenant perspective here. The relation of faith and works can be tricky but from the right Covenental perspective it makes sense. The elect are brought into the Covenant of Grace on two grounds, objective and subjective Justification.

Objective Justification is when God in His tribunal declares the sinner to be just in his sight because of what Christ has acomplished through His active, living a perfect life, and passive, paying for our sins, rightousness. This pardon doesn’t mean anything to the prisoner until his prison doors our open and he is let free. This is subjective Justification and is where faith comes in. This what is meant by Justification by faith alone, we are subjectivly Justified by faith alone. We are Objectivly Justified by Christ alone through grace alone.

Now this Justified person is regenerated and made alive in Christ, he is a new man. In a larger scope the purpose of redemption, which Justification is a part, is to restore a Covenant people to God. So now this Justified person is part of the Covenant community of God. How you get in (Redemption/Justification) and stay in (Perseverance/Sanctification) is by God’s grace alone. But being in the Covenant of Grace requires us to preform good works of love in graditude to what God has acomplished for us. So in this light good works have no forensic or debt paying element to them, we don’t have the problem of linking good works to faith because we see them both in light of the Covenant of Grace.

Now because we are still in possession of a sin nature we will fall short of perfection. Some Covenant members will and have commited such greivous sins as to deserve excomunication, which removes someone from the visible Covenant community. This is where the quote from the OP is somewhat refering to. Covenat breakers in scripture have always incurred the wrath of God, thuis is what the OP is refering to. We don’t understand punishments of Covenant members in a forensic or debt paying sense, it seemed that some people were thinking in that way about the wording. As a Covenant member, who is made a member purely by grace, there are ethical obligations in response to grace that are expected of us. That is the foundation of good works.

I hope that clarifies the Confession. It can be confusing to understand what is being is said unless you know the over arching context in which it all makes sense. Catholocism is no different. I must understand the big picture if I am to understand the individual pieces of theology.

With all due respect it creates more questiosn then it answers. Your concepts of justification and the “elect” all seem to contradict or render one or the other useless if any of the others are true.

 

[jwright82]

With all due respect it creates more questiosn then it answers. Your concepts of justification and the “elect” all seem to contradict or render one or the other useless if any of the others are true.

I apreciate the respect! That is euchumenicalism at its best! I amcurious about these “questions” though, what are they? I wonder if we can’t flesh them out for better understanding. Covenant theology can be confusing but only at particuler points.

 

[ignatius777]

I apreciate the respect! That is euchumenicalism at its best! I amcurious about these “questions” though, what are they? I wonder if we can’t flesh them out for better understanding. Covenant theology can be confusing but only at particuler points.

You are quite welcome. There is no benefit in being rude to others, it does nothing for understanding. As for my questions if a person is regenerated and a new man then how can that person continue to be a sinner? Lets start with that one ok?

 

[jwright82]

You are quite welcome. There is no benefit in being rude to others, it does nothing for understanding. As for my questions if a person is regenerated and a new man then how can that person continue to be a sinner? Lets start with that one ok?

Excellant question! The concept of “new man” does not need to neccessarly mean that a person is sinless. It can mean only that you are different than before, and I for one despite my doctrinal disagreements with the RCC, beleive that Catholics are part of the exact same Covenant of Grace and therefore regenerated. So if you are significantly different than before than you can be considered a “new man” linguisticly speaking. So how does this answer your question. Well regeneration’s chief end is to regenerate the will of fallen human beings to recieve and excersize faith, which is our subjective justification and our spiritual entrance into the Covenant of Grace.

Despite what most people think Calvinists do affirm that people have a free will of types. We are free to do what we want to do. So our will is the power by which our desires are satisfied. All regeneration is is the healing of our desires so that instead of hating God we love Him and rest in his grace for our salvation. Does that help?

 

[ignatius777]

Excellant question! The concept of “new man” does not need to neccessarly mean that a person is sinless. It can mean only that you are different than before, and I for one despite my doctrinal disagreements with the RCC, beleive that Catholics are part of the exact same Covenant of Grace and therefore regenerated. So if you are significantly different than before than you can be considered a “new man” linguisticly speaking. So how does this answer your question. Well regeneration’s chief end is to regenerate the will of fallen human beings to recieve and excersize faith, which is our subjective justification and our spiritual entrance into the Covenant of Grace.

Despite what most people think Calvinists do affirm that people have a free will of types. We are free to do what we want to do. So our will is the power by which our desires are satisfied. All regeneration is is the healing of our desires so that instead of hating God we love Him and rest in his grace for our salvation. Does that help?

I think its a positive step forward that we agree saved people continue to sin. I am fascinated by what you mean when you say people have a free will of types? If we are free to do as we want then we can sin which makes us unprepared for heaven. Imagine a closed door which is opened to us by the good will and generosity of the owner of the home to which the door is attached. Unless we walk through we cant enter can we? We werent responsible for opening the door we are only responsible for whether or not we walk through it. If we have free will of a type to do what we want then a willful choice must be made, wouldnt you say?

 

[jwright82]

I think its a positive step forward that we agree saved people continue to sin. I am fascinated by what you mean when you say people have a free will of types? If we are free to do as we want then we can sin which makes us unprepared for heaven. Imagine a closed door which is opened to us by the good will and generosity of the owner of the home to which the door is attached. Unless we walk through we cant enter can we? We werent responsible for opening the door we are only responsible for whether or not we walk through it. If we have free will of a type to do what we want then a willful choice must be made, wouldnt you say?

Of course, what Calvinists and Lutherans at this point are reacting to is the idea of free will that is most common now a days as a will that is not bound in any way, shape, or form. That is why we stress the fact that our will is free to do what it wants for the most part. I can want a million dollers but that don’t mean I will get it. The bible is pretty clear about the fact that fallen sinful human beings if left to themselves do not want the things of God and are at emnity to them. So yes people want to walk through doors and they do but that was a desire to do so which was their greatest desire at the moment.

I say it is of a type to mean different type than modern humanistic philosophies would define it.

 

[guanophore]

I think its a positive step forward that we agree saved people continue to sin. I am fascinated by what you mean when you say people have a free will of types? If we are free to do as we want then we can sin which makes us unprepared for heaven.

This is one of the main departures of Calvanism from the Apostolic faith. They believe that sin no longer leaves us unprepared for heaven. A “saved” person can fall into the most grievious sins, yet still obtain heaven.

 Imagine a closed door which is opened to us by the good will and generosity of the owner of the home to which the door is attached. Unless we walk through we cant enter can we? We werent responsible for opening the door we are only responsible for whether or not we walk through it. If we have free will of a type to do what we want then a willful choice must be made, wouldnt you say?

Calvin taught that human beings had no such free will. This was the foundation of one of his main tenents of faith = total depravity. We can’t evenchoose to walk thru the door.

 

[guanophore]

I think its a positive step forward that we agree saved people continue to sin. I am fascinated by what you mean when you say people have a free will of types? If we are free to do as we want then we can sin which makes us unprepared for heaven.

This is one of the main departures of Calvanism from the Apostolic faith. They believe that sin no longer leaves us unprepared for heaven. A “saved” person can fall into the most grievious sins, yet still obtain heaven.

 Imagine a closed door which is opened to us by the good will and generosity of the owner of the home to which the door is attached. Unless we walk through we cant enter can we? We werent responsible for opening the door we are only responsible for whether or not we walk through it. If we have free will of a type to do what we want then a willful choice must be made, wouldnt you say?

Calvin taught that human beings had no such free will. This was the foundation of one of his main tenents of faith = total depravity. We can’t evenchoose to walk thru the door.

 

[jwright82]

This is one of the main departures of Calvanism from the Apostolic faith. They believe that sin no longer leaves us unprepared for heaven. A “saved” person can fall into the most grievious sins, yet still obtain heaven.

Calvin taught that human beings had no such free will. This was the foundation of one of his main tenents of faith = total depravity. We can’t evenchoose to walk thru the door.

Well no we actually don’t teach either of those things. To say that a person can fall into greivous sin and make it into heaven is assuming so much as to really not be talking about Calvinism anymore but Catholicism. You can’t use the reductio ad absurdeum type argument on Calvinism and not assume Calvinistic presupositions in your argument. You basically assumed a Catholic understanding of things and than set out to reduce Calvinism to logical absurdity. I hate to say it but in logic that invalidates your argument.

We beleive that people have the freedom to do what they want, free will, but that what they want apart from God’s grace is to sin.

 

[ignatius777]

Well no we actually don’t teach either of those things. To say that a person can fall into greivous sin and make it into heaven is assuming so much as to really not be talking about Calvinism anymore but Catholicism. You can’t use the reductio ad absurdeum type argument on Calvinism and not assume Calvinistic presupositions in your argument. You basically assumed a Catholic understanding of things and than set out to reduce Calvinism to logical absurdity. I hate to say it but in logic that invalidates your argument.

We beleive that people have the freedom to do what they want, free will, but that what they want apart from God’s grace is to sin.

Then cite for us which sin would make one of the “elect” unfit for heaven. If all sin, past present and future, is covered by the blood of Jesus then to claim some sin can in fact make one unfit for heaven more then invalidates your argument.

 

[jwright82]

Then cite for us which sin would make one of the “elect” unfit for heaven. If all sin, past present and future, is covered by the blood of Jesus then to claim some sin can in fact make one unfit for heaven more then invalidates your argument.

The point is an elect member of the Covenant wouldn’t commit these sins and not repent of them. That is perseverence of the saints, that we as the elect will persevere. Now I agree that the modern day evangelical who beleives in easy beleivism would say that yes they can go on their merry way unrepentent and still be saved because once saved always saved. But that is not the historic Reformed teaching on the matter.

 

[ignatius777]

The point is an elect member of the Covenant wouldn’t commit these sins and not repent of them. That is perseverence of the saints, that we as the elect will persevere. Now I agree that the modern day evangelical who beleives in easy beleivism would say that yes they can go on their merry way unrepentent and still be saved because once saved always saved. But that is not the historic Reformed teaching on the matter.

So at least we agree on the need for repentence in order to be appropriate for heaven

 

[jwright82]

So at least we agree on the need for repentence in order to be appropriate for heaven

We do in fact agree on that.

 

[guanophore]

The point is an elect member of the Covenant wouldn’t commit these sins and not repent of them.

I had a Reformed person on CAF teach me that it was not necessary to repent from sins, and that Jesus never called us to repent from sins. I did find this a paradigm quite outside my Catholic expereince.

 

[jwright82]

I had a Reformed person on CAF teach me that it was not necessary to repent from sins, and that Jesus never called us to repent from sins. I did find this a paradigm quite outside my Catholic expereince.

Well if you would like I can refer you to th emassive amount of Reformed confessions that contradict that? The point is that it is an imature idea about Reformed theology, it is more in keeping with easy-beleivism than anything else.

 

[guanophore]

Well if you would like I can refer you to th emassive amount of Reformed confessions that contradict that? The point is that it is an imature idea about Reformed theology, it is more in keeping with easy-beleivism than anything else.

I went and found them, finding myself in a state of disbelief. This poster, however, was not into the “easy believism” idea, and believed as you do about the perseverance of the saints.

 

[jwright82]

I went and found them, finding myself in a state of disbelief. This poster, however, was not into the “easy believism” idea, and believed as you do about the perseverance of the saints.

I recomend this website monergism.com/. Surley you are not suggesting that one person you came into contact with defines for ever what Calvinists beleive? What I am telling is the historic beleif of Calvinist I do not care per se what this other person is saying. If you still don’t beleive me I will provide references if you want? But it is unfair to judge a whole bag of apples on by one bad one, surely you can see how unfair and uncharatable that is? I would encourage my fellow protatstants to also understand Catholicism as it understands itself before we use bad straw man type arguments.