I’m a former Evangelical that is willing to present an alternative view.
I’m not sure you represented the Protestant view on the OP. We cannot merit our justification before God. However, we do have rewards for our obedience done in Christ.
You sound very Protestant with your posting. What do you think the Catholic Catechism speaks about in regards to our personal merit?
Forgive me SSTeacher,I’m a former Evangelical that is willing to present an alternative view.
Although the parable was recognized as a device of communication long before the time of Jesus, His parables are the best – they are the cleverest and the most memorable. But Jesus’ parables are not just the cleverest of stories. They are a proclamation of the Gospel. It’s important, however, to note that parables do not teach doctrine.
If you want to tell people what to think you preach them a sermon. But if you tell them a parable then you’re leaving yourself open, inevitably, to interpretation. Yet you apparently find in this parable a clear teaching about merit. Well, I respectfully disagree with the idea that any parable contains clear teaching and I cite the first hearers in support of my assertion. When Jesus first started telling parables in Matthew 13, thus fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah, His followers didn’t have a clue as to what He was talking about and He had to explain to them that the parables were given to help them understand what the kingdom of heaven was like. But you’ll recall there were others to whom Jesus didn’t offer any explanation. He intended that those individuals should “go figure.” His reasons for doing so are perhaps easily discerned centuries later so I would suggest that the context wherein these parables were told ought continually to be kept in mind in order to avoid falling into the trap of reading too much into any one of them.
The focus of this parable is upon the unprofitable servant. Would you concede the possibility that Our Lord intended His hearers i.e. the Jews who heard this parable from His lips to interpret the unprofitable servant in this parable as representing the Scribes and Pharisees? If you are open–minded enough to accept that this might be a possibility the rest of my post will cause you no great difficulty.
The Scribes and Pharisees weren’t known for being particularly open–minded. Their attitude to the Law and to the truth of God might perhaps be described as “set in stone.” In the parable, the unprofitable servant buried his talent in the ground in order that he could return it to his master in exactly the same condition as it was at the time he’d received it. This certainly aligns with the attitude of the Scribes and Pharisees, wouldn’t you say? Their whole aim was to keep the Law exactly as it was. Any suggested change, development, or alteration would have met with their condemnation. They may have meant well but they had paralyzed the truth and it was this waywardness that Our Savior intended to rectify.
You’ll doubtless have noticed that many of the parables that Our Lord told commence, as this one does, with the reminder that the parable is intended to convey a truth about what the kingdom of heaven is like. So what might this parable be telling us? It could perhaps be telling us that there can be no religion without adventure, change and growth. Or it could be telling us that God expects us to use the gifts He gives us and that if we don’t use them we’ll find ourselves unhappy, frustrated and disappointed. Or it could be that this parable was aimed solely at the Jews and that we should read it concentrating mainly upon the context but having done so view it through a Christian lens and see it as a reminder that legalism stunts spiritual growth.
Any or all of the foregoing.
Cordially,
Mick
That salvation is by the Grace of God. I have already shown you in another thread what the Council of Trent says in this regard. Why do you always look to twist Catholic doctrine to fit your Calvinist preconceptions of it?
From the Catechism:
2nd Adam, don’t derail another thread.
I’m not twisting anything, or trying to derail a thread. We simply wear different pairs of glasses. Merit and justification is very confusing to most Catholics from my Reformed perspective glasses.
2nd Adam here is the OP:
This thread is about meriting rewards in heaven. Not about whether we can merit for ourselves our initial justification. Which we can’t.
And you answer that this is a very protestant comment and then ask what the poster thinks the Catechism would say about merit you are suggesting that the CCC will differ and say that we can merit our initial justification. Again, trying to twist Catholic doctrine to fit your preconceptions of it. The CC doesn’t teach a works based salvation. See the Council of Trent.
God bless you
Okay, I wil bow out of this thread. I see your point.
You don’t have to bow out. Your first post was great:
You’re correcting a generalization. Please explain.
Thanks for your kind words and hosptiality. I think I better spend my time and energry on the justifcation thread and the new TULIP thread on the Apologetics section. I should limited my participation to those two threads. I hope you join me over there when you are able.
Hi Mick. Thanks. I’ve gone through your post, a bit long though but it’s well written as you expound on the subject.
But a parable does support a doctrine. Some parables are very obvious demonstration to make a teaching clearer, exactly why Jesus told them. I don’t quite agree one can simply allows multiple understandings to a parable, as Jesus himself often made it clear as to what it is intended to espouse. Many times our understanding is made very distinct on a given topic much after hearing a parable clarifying it.
This is certainly a point of disagreement among us then. Maybe not to Jesus audience but the fact he had to explain the meaning of the parable makes it understandable especially for us today who have the benefit of the written Bible. The Bible certainly does not leave us orphans not knowing what it actually means. So this is the basis why I differ from you.
As per my explanation above.
Frankly, I am not expert enough on the subject of the thread – merit. I have some ideas about it as a Catholic but my understanding tends to be simplistic, and when said can become sitting duck for ruthless theologians to shoot at. So I would not even attempt to defend the subject theologically; let others do it. My post is mainly regarding the Biblical verses per se.
I really have a problem with this, Mick. I would expect the Pharisees as the teachers of the Law to keep them exactly as it was; any other option to change or manipulate it is certainly not right. Our objection to the Pharisees is NOT that they faithfully have kept the Law but their hypocrisy in keeping them – they did not do as they preach and that deserved the ire of the Lord.
Mick you certainly need to clarify that statement of religion with adventure as it gives a connotation that it is grasping in the dark on certain areas of doctrine not knowing exactly what they mean. Our position is that the Church knows what they mean.
In a way, yes, that could certainly be the result of not using them. As in all things when we don’t devote ourselves to walk in the Lord’s path and do not attribute our output for his purpose and do n to depend on him – the result should always end up in unhappiness for it the Lord that can truly give us contentment and the peace that we truly need.
I don’t quite understand. While it is certainly wise to understand the Bible in its context it should be read with contemporary lens so that we know what does it tells us.
God bless you, Mick.
You’re saying possibly, so you’re not quite sure…Possibly the development of spiritual gifts?
Speculatively,
Mick
we are allowed in heaven by the grace of God through jesus