Free Grace Salvation

[QNDNNDQDCE]

You are probably right about the translation since it would be more logical that way, but that (and the doctrines of Purgatory and temporal punishment) are beside the point. The passage, as it is translated went much further than I would have needed it to. If you will recall, the question is whether repentance is a human act. As I said earlier, repentance can be considered as an action or as a virtue. St. Thomas writes,

I answer that… to repent is to deplore something one has done [citing St. Gregory the Great]. Now it has been stated above (84, 9) that sorrow or sadness is twofold. First, it denotes a passion of the sensitive appetite, and in this sense penance [or repentance] is not a virtue, but a passion. Secondly, it denotes an act of the will, and in this way it implies choice, and if this be right, it must, of necessity, be an act of virtue. For it is stated in Ethic. ii, 6 that virtue is a habit of choosing according to right reason. Now it belongs to right reason than one should grieve for a proper object of grief as one ought to grieve, and for an end for which one ought to grieve. And this is observed in the penance of which we are speaking now; since the penitent assumes a moderated grief for his past sins, with the intention of removing them. Hence it is evident that the penance of which we are speaking now, is either a virtue or the act of a virtue."
-ST III, 85, 1

When you insist that repentance is only a state of being, you seem to have in mind repentance as a virtue. However, will one have the virtue without manifesting the act? Even the penitent thief had the act, both inwardly and outwardly. Nor do I think that virtue considered simply is the ground of God’s reward since we are not judged according to our disposition to act as a mere potential, but according to how we act in accordance with virtue according to our ability.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Your discussion of Purgatory is really far removed from the discussion, and I will not say much about it for that reason, but I will comment since I quoted Dositheus. First, my point in quoting was not to prove Purgatory, but to show that repentance was an act. As you pointed out, the actions given are probably meant as “the fruits of repentance,” especially since it identifies “fruit” with “satisfaction,” in which case it wasn’t a great prooftext on my part, though it does not deny an act of repentance. Second, with regards to Purgatory, your disagreement is not with Purgatory itself (which Dositheus is clearly teaching), but the nature of temporal punishment, which you say is purely medicinal. Is this a valid objection? St. Thomas more than once quotes Aristotle (Ethics II.3) saying, “punishment is a kind of medicine.” He multiple reasons why a debt of temporal punishment should remain after the sin has been removed. One is satisfaction.

The virtuous man does not deserve punishment simply, but he may deserve it as satisfactory: because his very virtue demands that he should do satisfaction for his offenses against God or man. (I-II, 87, 6, ad. 2)

Another is medicinal.

When the stain is removed, the wound of sin is healed as regards the will. But punishment is still requisite in order that the other powers of the soul be healed, since they were so disordered by the sin committed, so that, to wit, the disorder may be remedied by the contrary of that which caused it. (I-II 87, 6, ad. 3)

Also, to avoid scandal.

Moreover punishment is requisite in order to restore the equality of justice, and to remove the scandal given to others, so that those who were scandalized at the sin many be edified by the punishment, as may be seen in the example of David quoted above. (Ibid.)

It would be a mistake to reject the idea of satisfaction because there is a medicinal element. Why did Christ institute the mass? Not because it is absolutely necessary for God to communicate the merits of Christ to humanity because God is omnipotent. But God gave us the mass because man is obligated to worship God with sacrifice, and God gave man the most perfect sacrifice to offer to Him, his Only-Begotten Son. To say that the mass has a medicinal purpose would be correct, but that does not do away with man’s obligation to worship his creator. In the same way, man is obliged by justice to make reparations for his crimes as far as he able.

Your objection that our suffering does not “accomplish” our release from Purgatory is confused. Our works do not “accomplish” our salvation, but that does not mean that our works are not necessary.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Your discussion of Purgatory is really far removed from the discussion, and I will not say much about it for that reason, but I will comment since I quoted Dositheus. First, my point in quoting was not to prove Purgatory, but to show that repentance was an act. As you pointed out, the actions given are probably meant as “the fruits of repentance,” especially since it identifies “fruit” with “satisfaction,” in which case it wasn’t a great prooftext on my part, though it does not deny an act of repentance. Second, with regards to Purgatory, your disagreement is not with Purgatory itself (which Dositheus is clearly teaching), but the nature of temporal punishment, which you say is purely medicinal. Is this a valid objection? St. Thomas more than once quotes Aristotle (Ethics II.3) saying, “punishment is a kind of medicine.” He multiple reasons why a debt of temporal punishment should remain after the sin has been removed. One is satisfaction.

The virtuous man does not deserve punishment simply, but he may deserve it as satisfactory: because his very virtue demands that he should do satisfaction for his offenses against God or man. (I-II, 87, 6, ad. 2)

Another is medicinal.

When the stain is removed, the wound of sin is healed as regards the will. But punishment is still requisite in order that the other powers of the soul be healed, since they were so disordered by the sin committed, so that, to wit, the disorder may be remedied by the contrary of that which caused it. (I-II 87, 6, ad. 3)

Also, to avoid scandal.

Such I think is the plight of the soul as well when the Divine force, for God’s very love of man, drags that which belongs to Him from the ruins of the irrational and material. Not in hatred or revenge for a wicked life, to my thinking, does God bring upon sinners those painful dispensations; He is only claiming and drawing to Himself whatever, to please Him, came into existence. But while He for a noble end is attracting the soul to Himself, the Fountain of all Blessedness, it is the occasion necessarily to the being so attracted of a state of torture. Just as those who refine gold from the dross which it contains not only get this base alloy to melt in the fire, but are obliged to melt the pure gold along with the alloy, and then while this last is being consumed the gold remains, so, while evil is being consumed in the purgatorial fire, the soul that is welded to this evil must inevitably be in the fire too, until the spurious material alloy is consumed and annihilated by this fire. If a clay of the more tenacious kind is deeply plastered round a rope, and then the end of the rope is put through a narrow hole, and then some one on the further side violently pulls it by that end, the result must be that, while the rope itself obeys the force exerted, the clay that has been plastered upon it is scraped off it with this violent pulling and is left outside the hole, and, moreover, is the cause why the rope does not run easily through the passage, but has to undergo a violent tension at the hands of the puller. In such a manner, I think, we may figure to ourselves the agonized struggle of that soul which has wrapped itself up in earthy material passions, when God is drawing it, His own one, to Himself, and the foreign matter, which has somehow grown into its substance, has to be scraped from it by main force, and so occasions it that keen intolerable anguish.

Then it seems, I said, that it is not punishment chiefly and principally that the Deity, as Judge, afflicts sinners with; but He operates, as your argument has shown, only to get the good separated from the evil and to attract it into the communion of blessedness.
newadvent.org/fathers/2915.htm

The first thing worth noting is the necessity of the purgatorial punishment for the soul’s union with God. Secondly, although she says that punishment is not “chiefly and principally” the reason for purgation, that is only to be understood as meaning that God does not inflict punishment on man because He delights in inflicting suffering when He has been harmed, which would be a serious misrepresentation of Latin teaching (but one that Orthodox polemicists use as if it were not), although, to be fair, Scripture does ascribe “vengeance” to God, but this must be understood figuratively. If you read the sermon, you will see that he supports the idea of punishment in an Aristotelian sense. He explicitly calls the purgatorial fires a punishment. Secondly, the idea of satisfaction isn’t even the dominant principle behind the Latin doctrine of Purgatory, which is why it is, in fact, called “Purgatory” and not “Satisfactory.”

 

[SteveVH]

That’s apostasy. The metaphor would be me serving supper late, and burning the hors d’oeuvres and Jesus deciding He’s had enough of waiting and takes off.

Why do you continue to ignore the fact that I have repeatedly stated that God always remains faithful; that he will never leave one who desires to be with him and who submits their lives to him? God never abandons us. You should keep in mind that Jesus loves even those who are in hell. He gave his life for them as well as you and me. Imagine how he grieves over those who choose hell after what he has done for them.

Sin, especially mortal (serious) sin, is a conscious turning away from God. It is a choice made possible by free will. So whether one simply abandons the faith altogether (apostasy) or chooses to persist in mortal sin, even while a believer, the result is the same. This has nothing to do with one serving dinner late or burning the hors 'd’oeurves. It is more akin to infidelity in a marriage; the breaking of a vow; choosing someone or something above your beloved. It is us that break the relationship, not God. he continually waits for us to return to him.

Now, will we reap the consequences? Absolutely, but that doesn’t include Jesus letting go of you.

Correct. Instead it includes you letting go of Jesus. Just what consequences do you imagine one will have to face if not the loss of salvation?

One of the names of God is The LORD our Righteousness; it isn’t your own righteousness that saves you nor keeps you.

Agreed. But my response to God’s gift of grace will determine whether or not I am saved. Grace is not imposed; it is a gift that must be accepted and the determination of our acceptance is the way we live our lives in accordance with the commands of Christ. “Those who love me will keep my commands”.

I also firmly believe He can and will kill one of His sheep dead if it be necessary.

Absolutely, just as Paul states about the flesh, Paul calls himself the chief of sinners in a present tense. We still have the old man to contend with til death. John goes on to say in 1 John 3: 9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and** he cannot sin**, because he is born of God. Now, we have a conundrum is Paul is saying he is a sinner and that he does things that he doesn’t want to do, but John is saying that we cannot sin, not will not but cannot. So who is right? Both of them are of course. The new man is that new creature in Christ, and is not placed under the law, where the law doesn’t reach, there is no condemnation, and no sin is imputed to that new man.

Your idea of being free from the law is much like someone receiving diplomatic immunity. It doesn’t really matter what we do because we will suffer no consequences.

If I have given my life to Jesus I can no longer persist in my former life of sin. This is called conversion. For example, if, prior to my conversion, I was living in a relationship outside of the bonds of marriage, I must end that way of living. I cannot continue to persist in that sin and at the same time remain in relationship with Christ.

But God, knowing our human weakness and our tendency toward sin (concupiscence), knew that we would continue to fail in many ways. This is why he provided channels of his grace and mercy, specifically, in this case, the sacrament of Reconciliation. His mercy is always available if and when we seek it. It is a means of restoring our relationship.

It is, really, much like a marriage. When one spouse hurts or offends the other, we must reconcile with each other in order to remain in relationship. And then we have degrees of offensiveness. One degree would be your example of serving dinner late or burning the hors d’oeuvers. Another degree would be infidelity. The consequences are much different.

 

[SteveVH]

That’s where we disagree. If I slip and lie that is not me abandoning my trust in Christ; Who He is and what He has done.

Agreed. But lets say that I have not just slipped, but have told a lie and persist in maintaining that lie. Maybe it is gossip that I started which truly hurts the reputation of another. And, rather than coming clean, I continue in the lie rather than risk the consequences of owning up to it. Have I then abandoned my trust in Christ?

We show our trust in Christ by showing our trust in his mercy.

"If we confess our sins he is faithful and righteous to forgive us the sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

By the same token, if we do not confess and persist in our sin then we are not forgiven and are not cleansed from all unrighteousness. God’s mercy is not diplomatic immunity from all future sins. We must be reconciled with God.

And protestants such as I don’t believe in the sacrament of reconciliation, nor that confession to a priest is necessary.

Yes, I am aware of that. Sad, but true. But your belief does not change the truth. One who sincerely believes that they can fly off of a twenty story building will still go splat.

All my sin is paid for by Christ and I’m truly set free from it all, for Jesus said “it is finished” ie “paid in full.” This underscores our total and complete need for God as Saviour and Sanctifier. So, yes, all of this has definite effects on our understanding of other aspects of our faiths.

You are confusing “redemption” with “salvation”. Yes, Christ paid the price for all of mankind. That is called redemption. That is what is finished. He has delivered the gift. Our salvation, however, is dependent upon our response to this great gift, not just at one moment in our lives, but each and every day for the rest of our lives.

I believe that that persons works will be tried when they die. All things of wood, hay, stubble will be burned away, all things gold and good shall stay. If all of that’s person’s works are wood, hay and stubble, then it will burn down to the foundation, which is Christ, and no further. In short, yes, Jesus’ righteousness is so vast, and His sacrifice so efficacious that sin itself was nailed to the cross. .

Oh, my. This is the danger in OSAS. It has eternal consequences. Those who find themselves in mortal sin and believe that there is no reason to repent because Jesus has already taken care of it are in mortal, spiritual danger. You are walking on very thin ice here.

 

[Kliska]

Why do you continue to ignore the fact that I have repeatedly stated that God always remains faithful; that he will never leave one who desires to be with him and who submits their lives to him?

To me, this position is self-refuting with what you keep saying. You equate don’t something like telling a lie to turning you back on Jesus deliberately. It doesn’t work that way as Paul explains; we do that which we don’t want to do, and that which we want to do we don’t.

God never abandons us. You should keep in mind that Jesus loves even those who are in hell. He gave his life for them as well as you and me. Imagine how he grieves over those who choose hell after what he has done for them.

One who is His would not choose Hell. Again; this is the difference you equate sin (missing the mark of perfection) with turning your back on Jesus. Then you have a problem because Paul was chief of sinners, according to his own words in the present tense. Then he must be perpetually headed to Hell.

Sin, especially mortal (serious) sin, is a conscious turning away from God. It is a choice made possible by free will. So whether one simply abandons the faith altogether (apostasy) or chooses to persist in mortal sin, even while a believer, the result is the same. This has nothing to do with one serving dinner late or burning the hors 'd’oeurves. It is more akin to infidelity in a marriage; the breaking of a vow; choosing someone or something above your beloved. It is us that break the relationship, not God. he continually waits for us to return to him.

The marriage metaphor can only go so far, as it has now become a civil matter. But with God, apostasy would be asking Him for a divorce, whereas sin is a spouse who refuses to leave the other one even if they were cheated on. Sin has no power any more; literally, there is no law to hold us to if we are in Christ. This is part of the meat of the gospel instead of the milk.

Just what consequences do you imagine one will have to face if not the loss of salvation?

Temporal consequence (including chastisement from the Father), as well as eternal consequence and loss of rewards.

Agreed. But my response to God’s gift of grace will determine whether or not I am saved. Grace is not imposed; it is a gift that must be accepted and the determination of our acceptance is the way we live our lives in accordance with the commands of Christ. “Those who love me will keep my commands”.

How do I work the works of God? Believe on Him Whom He hath sent (Jesus). What are His commandments; to love God and love our neighbor. Not to be perfect. Let me ask this; if your child tells a lie to you, do you quit loving them? Of course not. God is not looking for perfection (as that was completed by Jesus, and imputed to us because we are in Christ), but rather trust (faith) and love. Once more He doesn’t disown you if you sin; justice was already meted out on Christ on the cross.

Do you not believe God can cut off life?

Your idea of being free from the law is much like someone receiving diplomatic immunity. It doesn’t really matter what we do because we will suffer no consequences.

But we do, and they will ripple into eternity.

If I have given my life to Jesus I can no longer persist in my former life of sin. This is called conversion. For example, if, prior to my conversion, I was living in a relationship outside of the bonds of marriage, I must end that way of living. I cannot continue to persist in that sin and at the same time remain in relationship with Christ.

So you are saved by grace but have to walk worthy? That’s not scriptural from where I’m sitting; but the RCC does indeed teach something different. I respect that is your view even if not mine.

But God, knowing our human weakness and our tendency toward sin (concupiscence), knew that we would continue to fail in many ways. This is why he provided channels of his grace and mercy, specifically, in this case, the sacrament of Reconciliation. His mercy is always available if and when we seek it. It is a means of restoring our relationship.

That relationship is not severed. The Spirit can be grieved, but He’s sealed you. Again, this is a difference in protestant thought; grace is by faith. As you trust God, grace flows.

 

[Kliska]

Agreed. But lets say that I have not just slipped, but have told a lie and persist in maintaining that lie. Maybe it is gossip that I started which truly hurts the reputation of another. And, rather than coming clean, I continue in the lie rather than risk the consequences of owning up to it. Have I then abandoned my trust in Christ?

No.

We show our trust in Christ by showing our trust in his mercy.

"If we confess our sins he is faithful and righteous to forgive us the sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

By the same token, if we do not confess and persist in our sin then we are not forgiven and are not cleansed from all unrighteousness. God’s mercy is not diplomatic immunity from all future sins. We must be reconciled with God.

We are reconciled by Christ, and that is what we are supposed to trust. Again, it is a much more protestant perspective that Jesus became sin and paid for all of it. I can’t pay a fine that I no longer owe. His payment stretches to eternity and covers all my sin. If I go to pay a debt at the bank and it has already been paid, I can hand them my money, but it won’t go to paying my debt, it’s gone. That is the magnitude of what Christ did. Which means now I’m humbled to the point of utter commitment to following the will and lead of the Spirit in my life; not because of need but rather because of love and trust.

In essence one we have truly come to repentance, which is a part of faith, we are indeed given diplomatic immunity but if we have truly had a heart change we won’t abuse that freedom. And, if we slip and sin, we have a chat with our Father in Heaven, and it is already covered. Jesus paid it all, and we are left amazed.

Yes, I am aware of that. Sad, but true. But your belief does not change the truth. One who sincerely believes that they can fly off of a twenty story building will still go splat.

A day is coming where we will have all of our answers straight from the source, and I know that no one will be left standing with any pride on what they got wrong in this life. He’ll let me know if I’m wrong either in this life, or the life to come. Don’t be sad, Paul teaches to go boldly to the throne of Grace and I have God as a Father, as a Mediator, and as an Intercessor… so do you.

You are confusing “redemption” with “salvation”. Yes, Christ paid the price for all of mankind. That is called redemption. That is what is finished. He has delivered the gift. Our salvation, however, is dependent upon our response to this great gift, not just at one moment in our lives, but each and every day for the rest of our lives.

We are agreed, though you see the gift as essentially a non-transformative experience. You open it but it can be lost or taken away. That’s not how I perceive it according to scripture because I’m not the one keeping the covenant perfectly; God has and is, and there is now literally a new creature in Christ. That is why we proclaim the Lord is our Righteousness. The Holy Spirit is God Himself and is power beyond our imagining. If radiation is capable of changing us on a cellular level, how much more so is God?

It should be obvious that I’m not saying there won’t be a change in people; of course there will. But, look at our example of the carnal Christians of Corinthians. They were carnal, but still called brethren even while carnal, even before they changed their ways. Why? Because they did not renounce Christ.

Oh, my. This is the danger in OSAS. It has eternal consequences. Those who find themselves in mortal sin and believe that there is no reason to repent because Jesus has already taken care of it are in mortal, spiritual danger. You are walking on very thin ice here.

Quite the contrary, I don’t walk on ice, but on a sure foundation. That foundation is Jesus; Paul makes it crystal clear. All sin is mortal sin in the age of Law. All sin separates from God, that is why Jesus had to come here and take care of things in the first place. The Law condemns, but it can only condemn where it has rule. Outside of Christ is the Law. It is to bring us to Christ, and show us our sinful selves. Once in Christ the Law has no effect, it has done it’s job. Now is the time of the Shepherd, not fences. If His Sheep wanders off, He goes and gets it. When a sheep is in danger, it takes the Good Shepherd to save it. Repentance from sinful acts is good, but is brought about by the Spirit, not the old man, slave to the flesh.

 

[fhansen]

We are reconciled by Christ, and that is what we are supposed to trust. Again, it is a much more protestant perspective that Jesus became sin and paid for all of it. I can’t pay a fine that I no longer owe. His payment stretches to eternity and covers all my sin. If I go to pay a debt at the bank and it has already been paid, I can hand them my money, but it won’t go to paying my debt, it’s gone. That is the magnitude of what Christ did. Which means now I’m humbled to the point of utter commitment to following the will and lead of the Spirit in my life; not because of need but rather because of love and trust.

Turning back to sin, especially serious sin-is to turn away from God, to spurn Him, to mock what Jesus did even if you still believe, as demons do, that Jesus did it.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Turning back to sin, especially serious sin-is to turn away from God, to spurn Him, to mock what Jesus did even if you still believe, as demons do, that Jesus did it.

Thankful Christ is still there every time we turn back to Him!

 

[SteveVH]

To me, this position is self-refuting with what you keep saying. You equate don’t something like telling a lie to turning you back on Jesus deliberately.

Jesus is the Truth. When we lie, do we not deliberately turn our back on Truth? If we turn our back on truth, we turn our back on Jesus.

It doesn’t work that way as Paul explains; we do that which we don’t want to do, and that which we want to do we don’t.

He is explaining the human condition of fallen mankind. And this is why he must work out his salvation in fear and trembling; why he must persevere and run the race to the end. It is why he does not rest in a false sense of comfort concerning his own salvation. He was very aware that he was also capable of abandoning Christ in the future, being constantly drawn toward sin, even though he wishes he wasn’t.

One who is His would not choose Hell.

One who has chosen to be His and has demonstrated their choice through the way they live does not, by definition, choose hell. But that is not the issue. You seem to hold the position that a person who, at one time in their life made a sincere choice to follow Christ, is not then capable of throwing it all away, of changing their mind; of falling into sin through temptations of the flesh and choosing to remain there. That is a self-evident fallacy.

Again; this is the difference you equate sin (missing the mark of perfection) with turning your back on Jesus. Then you have a problem because Paul was chief of sinners, according to his own words in the present tense. Then he must be perpetually headed to Hell.

Not at all. It means he must constantly seek reconciliation with God for the very reason that we are all sinners in need of God’s mercy. God did not say “I suffered and died for you. Now go do what you wish. You’re covered.”

The marriage metaphor can only go so far, as it has now become a civil matter. But with God, apostasy would be asking Him for a divorce, whereas sin is a spouse who refuses to leave the other one even if they were cheated on. Sin has no power any more; literally, there is no law to hold us to if we are in Christ.

I am not in any way talking about a civil matter. I am talking about a relationship and what happens to that relationship when reconciliation does not occur. And your analogy is incorrect. God is the faithful spouse. God is always ready to forgive his beloved. But when his beloved cheats on him by turning his eyes toward another (the object of our sin), there is no relationship until the one doing the cheating returns to the faithful spouse and asks for forgiveness. If this doesn’t happen, there is separation and this separation is caused by the cheating spouse, not the faithful spouse. Separation from God is hell, chosen by the one who desires someone or something other than God. God grants them their request; a life without him.

This is part of the meat of the gospel instead of the milk.

Not sure what you are trying to imply here, but whatever.

Temporal consequence (including chastisement from the Father), as well as eternal consequence and loss of rewards.

Could you be more specific? What are the eternal consequences? What are the loss of rewards? Do you believe that people suffer consequences in heaven?

 

[SteveVH]

How do I work the works of God? Believe on Him Whom He hath sent (Jesus). What are His commandments; to love God and love our neighbor. Not to be perfect.

Really? “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48)

And what do you believe is entailed in loving our neighbor? If I hurt another’s reputation, or bear false witness against them, am I not breaking God’s commands? Jesus didn’t replace the Ten Commandments with the two. He instead revealed what is at the heart of the commandments, and that is Love. If we love authentically, we keep all of the commandments. If we do not, we break them and fail at loving God and our neighbor. When we do this, we must repair that relationship and God has provided the means for that in his sacraments.

Let me ask this; if your child tells a lie to you, do you quit loving them?

No. And have I even implied that God stops loving us? Here we go again. To sum up my position concerning the love of God it is this: There is nothing that I can do to make God love me more and there is nothing that I can do to make God love me less. As I have stated, God loves even those who are in hell, who have chosen a life apart from him. But they are in hell nonetheless. Not because God sent them there, but because that is what they chose; a life apart from him.

If my wife chooses to leave me, I may very well love her as I watch her walk out the door into the arms of another. Neither my faithfulness nor my love for her can stop her from doing this. It is no different with God. The relationship has been broken even though I may remain faithful and still remain in love with her. God has not broken the relationship. We have. And if it is to be reconciled it is us that must approach God to ask for his mercy and forgiveness. If we do, he is always faithful and will always forgive. But if forgiveness is not asked, it is not given.

Of course not. God is not looking for perfection (as that was completed by Jesus, and imputed to us because we are in Christ), but rather trust (faith) and love. Once more He doesn’t disown you if you sin; justice was already meted out on Christ on the cross.

Please stop discussing this as if this is the position I have put forward. How many times do I have to say “God does not disown us”? Why do you keep ignoring this? Do you believe that it is God’s position to suffer and die for us so that we might be able to live comfortably in our sin?

So you are saved by grace but have to walk worthy?

Yes, I am saved by grace. And yes, I must walk worthily. But I do not always walk worthily, nor do you or anyone else. When I repent and fall back into the arms of Christ I am saved through his grace and made worthy once again. This is a daily process, not a one time event. I must cooperate with God’s grace and seek it at all times.

Your position is very much like a person who has the attitude that it doesn’t matter if they cheat on their spouse because their spouse loves them anyway and will never leave them. That is a very misguided view, in my opinion.

That’s not scriptural from where I’m sitting

Well, I don’t know what qualifications you have that allow you to make that determination, but it conflicts with what the Church that Jesus founded has taught for 2000 years.

 

[Kliska]

He is explaining the human condition of fallen mankind. And this is why he must work out his salvation in fear and trembling; why he must persevere and run the race to the end. It is why he does not rest in a false sense of comfort concerning his own salvation. He was very aware that he was also capable of abandoning Christ in the future, being constantly drawn toward sin, even though he wishes he wasn’t.

That’s not what he said. He said that he is chief of sinners; I realize hyperbole, but he very much meant it. Keep reading what his answer is; we don’t save ourselves it’s all about grace through faith, and relying on Jesus to keep us, not ourselves, and not by works.

You seem to hold the position that a person who, at one time in their life made a sincere choice to follow Christ, is not then capable of throwing it all away, of changing their mind; of falling into sin through temptations of the flesh and choosing to remain there. That is a self-evident fallacy.

Changing their mind is a particular type of sin; it’s apostasy. Lying isn’t changing their mind about Jesus; Who He is, what He did, how and why He died, and that He rose 3 days later.

Not at all. It means he must constantly seek reconciliation with God for the very reason that we are all sinners in need of God’s mercy. God did not say “I suffered and died for you. Now go do what you wish. You’re covered.”

Of course not, freedom comes with responsibility but it is a responsibility in true freedom. Should we sin so that grace can abound? God forbid. I don’t need the constant threat of Hell to behave. Jesus grants us peace with God. The Greek idea of “peace” is cessation of against-ness. So, in effect, He says I suffered and died for you and sin and the law were nailed up with me, you’re covered, you’re free, there remains no condemnation, trust me."

God is the faithful spouse.

Precisely and He says I will never leave nor forsake you. The members of the church are in a unique position, thank God.

God is always ready to forgive his beloved. But when his beloved cheats on him by turning his eyes toward another (the object of our sin), there is no relationship until the one doing the cheating returns to the faithful spouse and asks for forgiveness.

Wrong. The relationship doesn’t end until one side asks for a divorce, and it’s carried through. If the faithful spouse sticks with the other, and the cheating spouse doesn’t divorce the other, they are still married. As you say, God is the faithful spouse in the new covenant.

Could you be more specific? What are the eternal consequences? What are the loss of rewards? Do you believe that people suffer consequences in heaven?

The eternal consequences are what happens to us in our place in Heaven and/or on the new earth. We are not going to be stagnant in the next life, and still have our role to play. Everyone’s works will be judged, and we will all be aware of our failings, luckily they (our bad works) will be burnt away, but what is left is reward. To whom much is given much is expected; when we hear Jesus give parable about being faithful in little things shows we can be faithful in bigger things. If someone builds on the foundation of Christ with wood, hay, and stubble and it all burns away, they haven’t been very faithful, have they? So will be trusted with less. I also believe that we will keep our memories, from what I glean from scripture, and whatever I do here will have an impact on how I experience eternity.

 

[Kliska]

Really? “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48)

Is it your perfection that matters? I sure hope it isn’t mine, if it is, I’m doomed. Christ’s perfection is the lynchpin, and His sacrifice, for it is His blood that cleanses us, for He paid for it all; His sacrifice is necessary and sufficient to pay for what all of humanity has wrought. That is why it is so very important to trust Him and become a new creature in Christ, because salvation is by grace through faith.

And what do you believe is entailed in loving our neighbor? If I hurt another’s reputation, or bear false witness against them, am I not breaking God’s commands? Jesus didn’t replace the Ten Commandments with the two. He instead revealed what is at the heart of the commandments, and that is Love. If we love authentically, we keep all of the commandments. If we do not, we break them and fail at loving God and our neighbor. When we do this, we must repair that relationship and God has provided the means for that in his sacraments.

We obviously agree on that but completely disagree on how it is done, who is responsible for it, and what it all ultimately means.

No. And have I even implied that God stops loving us? Here we go again. To sum up my position concerning the love of God it is this: There is nothing that I can do to make God love me more and there is nothing that I can do to make God love me less. As I have stated, God loves even those who are in hell, who have chosen a life apart from him. But they are in hell nonetheless. Not because God sent them there, but because that is what they chose; a life apart from him.

And we don’t disagree; but again the particulars are all going to be different and split between a predominantly RCC doctrine vs. a set of particularly protestant doctrines; that’s why you are a Catholic and I’m a protestant.

If my wife chooses to leave me, I may very well love her as I watch her walk out the door into the arms of another. Neither my faithfulness nor my love for her can stop her from doing this. It is no different with God.

If you don’t divorce her and she doesn’t divorce you; you’re still married. If you say, “I will never divorce you,” then the proverbial ball is in her court. There are many couples exactly in that situation. It is not the best situation to be in, but there you go. In essence we ARE in fact dealing with legal-style terminology because covenants are contracts.

Please stop discussing this as if this is the position I have put forward. How many times do I have to say “God does not disown us”? Why do you keep ignoring this? Do you believe that it is God’s position to suffer and die for us so that we might be able to live comfortably in our sin?

Our sin is gone, friend, it was placed on the cross and Jesus paid for it in your place. And, no, trying not to change with the Holy Spirit inside of you is like sitting on lit dynamite singing “I shall not be moved.” Freedom is not to be feared by someone that has the Holy Spirit in them.

Yes, I am saved by grace. And yes, I must walk worthily

That is our difference. We are saved by grace through faith and must live by faith.

But I do not always walk worthily, nor do you or anyone else. When I repent and fall back into the arms of Christ I am saved through his grace and made worthy once again. This is a daily process, not a one time event. I must cooperate with God’s grace and seek it at all times.

Seep and goats don’t switch back and forth. Wheat nor tares do either. You are one or the other.

Your position is very much like a person who has the attitude that it doesn’t matter if they cheat on their spouse because their spouse loves them anyway and will never leave them. That is a very misguided view, in my opinion.

Actually it’s not, it’s the exact opposite. It’s like a person who has the attitude that they will cherish, honor, and obey their spouse because that spouse loves them, has given everything for them, including his life, who will never leave, who will never cheat on them, and is always right and good. It’s done out of humble awe that brings us to our knees when we have done wrong because we can’t get up on our own, and he picks us up.

Well, I don’t know what qualifications you have that allow you to make that determination, but it conflicts with what the Church that Jesus founded has taught for 2000 years.

And again, you would say that because you believe what you are taught by the RCC, and that is fine for you. I understand that. My only “qualifications” are that I love God, trust Him, am indwelt by Him, and believe correctly understanding His word, and His will is the most important thing a human can do. That’s it. I never ever ever expect nor want anyone listening to me, they need to be listening to Him. And if you are, fantastic, that’s exactly what you should be doing.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I think you misunderstand the meaning of Trent here. The statement here is directed against a novel Protestant understanding. Protestants believe that justification consists in a solely forensic imputation of Christ’s own personal righteousness to the believer. There is nothing about the Christian that is righteous is God’s eyes. For this reason, the Christian’s righteousness is an “alien righteousness.” On the contrary, Catholics believe that there is a real change in the believer which is a proper and necessary part of justification, and it is on account of this change that we are imputed just. Furthermore, in scholastic terminology, justice is a “quality” inhering in its subject, so justice makes a thing just as whiteness makes a thing white. That’s why Trent specifies that formal cause (i.e. as whiteness causes a thing to be white) of justification is the “justice by which he makes us just” as opposed to “justice by which He Himself is just.” God is separate from his creature so to say that the creature is just in any ontological sense requires us to ascribe justice to the creature in a formal sense. There is no room for a third Orthodox position. This is an either-matter.

Now, if you want to say that man’s justice is a “participation in the uncreated justice,” that is fine as long as you give it an orthodox meaning. The excerpt you posted does not define what justice is. Nevertheless, if would have posted the rest of the sentence, you would see that the chapter does describe something about what justice is, if not a precise definition. It does not use the phrase “participation in the uncreated energies of God,” but I do not think it can be reproved on these grounds, since, as far as I know, this language is foreign to the Latin fathers. Instead you will see Latin writers call (sanctifying) grace a participation in the Divine Nature (e.g. ST Ia-IIae, q. 110, a.3) in reference to 2 Peter 1:4.

Again, I think you are also failing to distinguish between the multiple significances of a word. As before, there can be justice as an act, i.e. a just act. There can also be justice as a virtue, i.e. that within us which disposes us to act justly. In this particular case, what we have in mind is the “justice by which he makes us just,” or the grounds on which we are imputed just in God’s sight. In the words of St. Thomas, “justice is so-called inasmuch as it implies a certain rectitude of order in the interior disposition of a man, in so far as what is highest in man is subject to God, and the inferior powers of the soul are subject to the superior” (I-II, 113, 1). This corresponds not to the virtue of justice, but to what is called sanctifying grace, which is a participation in the Divine nature. Grace is distinct from the virtue of justice as a virtue is distinct from the nature to whose end virtue disposes its subject to act. Rather, justice considered as a virtue disposes man to act according to grace.

Since you believe Trent to be vague in its wording, I shall pose an interpretive question to you. When the declaration teaches that man is justified not that by which God Himself is just, should we understand this as meaning that man is justified by participation in the perfections of God, or by participating in a created likeness of God’s perfections?

 

[Lochias]

Kliska, why would God torment someone who didn’t want to be with Him by forcing that person to come back?

To the example of a wife leaving a husband for another man, you say “Well, they’re still married.” So? Do you think that the husband is going to treat a wife that refuses to come back to him just the same as he treated her while they were together?

The example of the sheppard and the sheep that you keep giving is one that describes God’s relationship to us, not the other way around.

You cannot say “No sin can separate me from God” while half of the Bible tells us that sin can do exactly that.

Actions speak louder than words, and sin is what leads to apostasy. Sin is very real, it is very dangerous, and it is a choice that can lead us away from God, into the misery of a life without Him.

God will let us experience that misery, the consequences of our actions, so as to see the difference between being with Him and being without Him, but He won’t force us to be with Him.

No loving God would force himself where He wasn’t wanted. You can see that today.

 

[Kliska]

Kliska, why would God torment someone who didn’t want to be with Him by forcing that person to come back?

To the example of a wife leaving a husband for another man, you say “Well, they’re still married.” So? Do you think that the husband is going to treat a wife that refuses to come back to him just the same as he treated her while they were together?

If that is his stance, then that is the way he’ll treat her.

The example of the sheppard and the sheep that you keep giving is one that describes God’s relationship to us, not the other way around.

Why does everyone think the metaphor only applies to God?

You cannot say “No sin can separate me from God” while half of the Bible tells us that sin can do exactly that.

You’re right! Then the other half tells us how to correct that separation and what God did to make it happen! For sin comes death; OT. Grace (unmerited favor) by faith (trust) places us in Christ; NT. Old covenant vs. New.

Actions speak louder than words, and sin is what leads to apostasy. Sin is very real, it is very dangerous, and it is a choice that can lead us away from God, into the misery of a life without Him.

Apostasy leads to apostasy. Sin and apostasy aren’t synonyms. Apostasy can be an example of sin, but they are not the same word.

God will let us experience that misery, the consequences of our actions, so as to see the difference between being with Him and being without Him, but He won’t force us to be with Him.

No loving God would force himself where He wasn’t wanted. You can see that today.

That’s apostasy.

 

[Lochias]

If that is his stance, then that is the way he’ll treat her.

Well, that’s God’s stance, as we’ve got plenty of example for, OT and NT.

Why does everyone think the metaphor only applies to God?

It applies only partially to us, because we aren’t dumb beasts.

You’re right! Then the other half tells us how to correct that separation and what God did to make it happen! For sin comes death; OT. Grace (unmerited favor) by faith (trust) places us in Christ; NT. Old covenant vs. New.

No, not even. There are exhortations against the dangers of sin for the faithful all over the NT, too, after Jesus’ death and resurrection. Let’s be intellectually honest, here.

Apostasy leads to apostasy. Sin and apostasy aren’t synonyms. Apostasy can be an example of sin, but they are not the same word.

…no, sorry, there’s a total disconnect here. How does something that doesn’t exist yet lead to itself? There must be a precursor. That would be sin.

That’s apostasy.

No ma’am, that’s common sense, as well as what God has taught us.

 

[Kliska]

Well, that’s God’s stance, as we’ve got plenty of example for, OT and NT.

So you believe when He says, I’ll never leave nor forsake, that He didn’t mean that?

It applies only partially to us, because we aren’t dumb beasts.

Wow. I guess I don’t see myself the same way. Compared to God I’m the dumbest beast there is.

No, not even. There are exhortations against the dangers of sin for the faithful all over the NT, too, after Jesus’ death and resurrection. Let’s be intellectually honest, here.

The exhortations are about being abandoned by God for sin, however. I’m being extremely intellectually honest. Jesus Christ’s sacrifice is completely sufficient and necessary. I depend solely on Him for salvation. Utterly and completely I know for a fact that He keeps me, not the other way around.

…no, sorry, there’s a total disconnect here. How does something that doesn’t exist yet lead to itself? There must be a precursor. That would be sin.

This is basic logic; A is A. Cat is Cat. Apostasy is apostasy. Sin is Sin. Not all sin is apostasy.

No ma’am, that’s common sense, as well as what God has taught us.

We disagree.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Since you believe Trent to be vague in its wording, I shall pose an interpretive question to you. When the declaration teaches that man is justified not that by which God Himself is just, should we understand this as meaning that man is justified by participation in the perfections of God, or by participating in a created likeness of God’s perfections?

I don’t think Trent is vague. It’s meaning is pretty clear if you know how to interpret the terms it uses. As for your question, I’m not exactly sure what you have in mind. Let me use your own words. When you speak of a participation in God’s uncreated energies, the energies are not created. However, the participation begins at some point in time so the participation in those energies can be said to be created.

Remember that in Latin theology sanctifying grace is not a substance. It is an accidental quality of the person, viz., the quality of participating in the Divine Nature.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I don’t think Trent is vague. It’s meaning is pretty clear if you know how to interpret the terms it uses. As for your question, I’m not exactly sure what you have in mind. Let me use your own words. When you speak of a participation in God’s uncreated energies, the energies are not created. However, the participation begins at some point in time so the participation in those energies can be said to be created.

Remember that in Latin theology sanctifying grace is not a substance. It is an accidental quality of the person, viz., the quality of participating in the Divine Nature.

Participation in the uncreated energies means that the energies are enhypostatized by the human hypostasis. By grace, we come to have attributes which are not analogous to the perfections, but are the perfections themselves. That is what it means to participate in the uncreated energies of God. My question then is if it is not that justice, by which God Himself is just, which justifies man, does that not necessarily entail rejecting the idea that we are justified by having Justice Itself (as what some might call a perfection, or as St. Maximus might call it, a participated being)?