Regeneration/Born-Again

[wpr]

bene7:

Of course he had genuine faith in both Gen. 12 and 22. In Gen. 12 he obediently left his homeland. In Gen. 22 he was even willing to offer up his promised son knowing, according to faith, God would have to resurrect him.

Notice, Dave, that it was a three day journey for Abraham and Isaac to Mt. Moriah. For those three days in the mind of Abraham Isaac was already dead. Sound familiar? Nevertheless, based on the promise made to him in Gen. 15, he knew God must resurrect Isaac in order to fulfill the promise. Of course we know that God prohibited Abraham from actually going through with it, but it beautifully illustrated (prefigured) what God would actually do with His own Son centuries later for the world. Abraham said: “God would provide for Himself the lamb…” (Gen. 22:8). Jesus said: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad” (Jn. 8:56).

HEB 11:17-19 “By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac; and he who had received the promises (i.e., back in Gen. 15) was offering up his only begotten son; it was he to whom it was said, “In Isaac your descendants shall be called.” He considered that God is able to raise men even from the dead; from which he also received him back as a type.”

As a type of Christ. Abraham’s faith to leave his homeland was not reckoned to him as righteousness. Not even when he was willing to offer up his “only” son. But the faith that God honored, by which he justified Abraham, was in the context of his believing the promises regarding his son, which were yet future in Gen. 15:1-6. Unlike the other two instances you keep wanting to include, in Gen. 15 Abraham did nothing but BELIEVE what God had promised in word, and God (at that time, and only at that time) reckoned it (his faith) to him as righteousness. No works were involved.

In like manner, God now reckons as righteousness the faith of all who do no more than believe the word concerning His only begotten Son, whom He actually did offer up to sacrifice; a work of eternal redemption. And through that work (the only work required) He is now free to, gift-wise (without a cause), save, justify, and bestow eternal life to all men who do no more than put their faith in Christ.

ROM. 4:25-5:1 “He who was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification].” Therefore having been justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ"

God is never called “merciful” when he justifies the ungodly through faith. He is considered “just” because of the offering up of His Son on the cross:

ROM 3:26 “…for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”

This teaching of Paul’s is didactic, not optimistic! There’s a God honoring, Christ glorifying reason why God reckoned Abraham’s faith to him as righteousness only in Gen. 15. And that reason is relevant to this very day in view of the cross of Christ and one’s complete faith in what He accomplished there on his behalf.

Blessings,
Bene

Calvin would be proud! Just keep assuming that imputed rightiousness and never give an inch.

Nice try Bene, but you are still evading the question. You admit Abraham had faith in Ch 12, but that faith was not good enough? It was only in Ch 15 that he gets imputed? He even asks God “How am I to know that I will posses it” in vs (the land) It’s quite clear he still harbours some doudt. So what has changed? Why imputation now?

Howe on earth do you evangelize with this message? Faith alone saves immediately and irrevocably, but only if it’s genuine in God’s eys, which naturally one can never be sure of because you are not God. Or who are you to talk back to God? Right?

Looky here Mr. person in need of salvation, I’ll show you who got imputed in the Bible. He had to leave his homeland for a land of turmoil and that did not do it. He had to beleive his barren wife would bear him children and that did not do it. Then, he got it when he beleived, then, later to test him more, God told him to sacrifice his son.

Great News Bene, I’m sold.

 

[sandusky]

wpr:

Overall, I’d say you and Bene are in a pickle here. Can you please decide among yourselves whose right and get back to me?

wpr:

Calvin would be proud! Just keep assuming that imputed rightiousness and never give an inch.

Nice try Bene, but you are still evading the question. You admit Abraham had faith in Ch 12, but that faith was not good enough? It was only in Ch 15 that he gets imputed? He even asks God “How am I to know that I will posses it” in vs (the land) It’s quite clear he still harbours some doudt. So what has changed? Why imputation now?

Howe on earth do you evangelize with this message? Faith alone saves immediately and irrevocably, but only if it’s genuine in God’s eys, which naturally one can never be sure of because you are not God. Or who are you to talk back to God? Right?

Looky here Mr. person in need of salvation, I’ll show you who got imputed in the Bible. He had to leave his homeland for a land of turmoil and that did not do it. He had to beleive his barren wife would bear him children and that did not do it. Then, he got it when he beleived, then, later to test him more, God told him to sacrifice his son.

Great News Bene, I’m sold.

You are chasing after pink elephants.

What is it you would like to hear me and bene say?

Were I you, I would be much more concerned about the fact that your church teaches that to be saved, one must only be sincere. That is clearly not Apostolic teaching.

 

[wpr]

sandusky:

You are chasing after pink elephants.

What is it you would like to hear me and bene say?

Were I you, I would be much more concerned about the fact that your church teaches that to be saved, one must only be sincere. That is clearly not Apostolic teaching.

I deserved that. I actually got a good laugh. Sorry if I offended you. I’m actually thrilled in a way that you actually read my post. (be nice Sandusky)

On your new point, I’m not familar with the specifics or context of the Catholic teaching you refer to. I profess only to be an ameteur theologin. Maybe you should start a new thread? I can’t say I’d be able to respond without doing my homework first. I suspect others could.

Now, back to this thread. What I want…

I’d like for you or Bene to explain the correct Biblical teaching on the matter at hand.

Do we know the instance Abraham’s justification was forensically imputed as Bene says (Gn 15:6)? Or do we not know when it was imputed, just that it was some time between his birth and Gn 15:6? (as you asserted and Dave said Charlie the old Protestant Preacher asserted as well) (funny, I never thought to call Martin “Marty”)

I think this is important because it directly effects our understanding of Paul, James, and maybe Hebrews.

Am I petulant, or is this not a legitimate question?

(It may be legitimate to tell me you can’t adequately answer unless I accept forensic imputed rightiouness as my template. I’d accept that reply with respect. So clearly state any condition. I’ll listen.)

Ps Forgive me, but my Grandfather was an Attorney and Historian. This inquisitivness seems to run in the family. You’d be glad to know he professed a fondness for Calvin in a book he wrote called “Five Hypothesis of Religion”. (never published, I beleive I have the only remaining copy)

 

[CARose]

Kendy:

Now, isn’t that the million dollar question?

Kendy

I guess that’s what keeps bringing us back Home to Rome!

 

[bene7]

wpr:

Nice try Bene, but you are still evading the question. You admit Abraham had faith in Ch 12, but that faith was not good enough? It was only in Ch 15 that he gets imputed? He even asks God “How am I to know that I will posses it” in vs (the land) It’s quite clear he still harbours some doudt. So what has changed? Why imputation now?

I already explained it in my post. I would try to re-explain it to you, however, I’m sure your problem is not my lack of clarity or your lack of ability to comprehend what I wrote, but more of a refusal. Bottom line, neither you nor I or Dave can get around the FACT that only in Gen. 15 did God reckon Abraham’s faith to him as righteousness. And even James MUST be interpreted with that FACT in view.

Howe on earth do you evangelize with this message?

Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, God’s only Son whom He actually delivered up for your sins, and like Abraham, you too will be reckoned righteous.

How’s that for a short, evangelistic pitch?

Blessings,
Bene

 

[sandusky]

wpr,

I have read all of your posts; I have not answered many because they would throw us off the discussion at hand. As the excitement of this thread now seems to be dying down, perhaps you might pose again some of those questions, and I will do my best to answer from my perspective.

wpr:

What I want…

I’d like for you or Bene to explain the correct Biblical teaching on the matter at hand.

Do we know the instance Abraham’s justification was forensically imputed as Bene says (Gn 15:6)? Or do we not know when it was imputed, just that it was some time between his birth and Gn 15:6? (as you asserted and Dave said Charlie the old Protestant Preacher asserted as well) (funny, I never thought to call Martin “Marty”)

I think this is important because it directly effects our understanding of Paul, James, and maybe Hebrews.

Am I petulant, or is this not a legitimate question?

You are not petulant, and your question is legitimate, and it is a good question.

As Bene has stated, God states through Moses that Abraham is righteous in Gen 15:6. That is the first time, and I think, the only time that statement is made until Paul reiterates it in Romans 4, and Gal 3, and Paul offers it as an illustration of his theology of faith alone.

Gen 15:6 is a statement of faith alone, IMO.

The effect that it should have on our understanding of not only Paul and James, but on justification proper, is that justification is by faith alone. Notice: all Abraham did was “believe.” That is the same thing Paul told the Philippian jailer, when the jailer asked, “what must I do to be saved?” Paul’s response: believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved…and Paul states again in Rom 10:9: confess and believe in Christ and you will be saved…and again v 11, quoting Isaiah, “whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed,” and the many other places in scripture in which that statement is made.

All of the statements by the Lord about Himself, concern “believing” in Him, not just that He came, but understanding, truly, what He did when He came, and by believing one appropriates the accomplishment of His cross.

And then there is the often overlooked statement by Paul in Rom 1:17: “the just shall live by faith,” the prelude to Paul’s theological monologue in Romans.

Salvation has always been, and will always be, by faith alone, both in the O.T., as evidenced in Gen 15, and in the N.T., as God does not change his M.O. from old to new with respect to the requirement that one must “believe” to be justified. Belief alone saves; belief “and ______” (fill in the blank) cannot save, because it goes beyond God’s established parameter of justification which is faith alone.

wpr:

Ps Forgive me, but my Grandfather was an Attorney and Historian. This inquisitivness seems to run in the family. You’d be glad to know he professed a fondness for Calvin in a book he wrote called “Five Hypothesis of Religion”. (never published, I beleive I have the only remaining copy)

Your Grandfather sounds like an interesting man.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Sandusky,

sandusky:

You are smelling blood where there is none; and dissension where there is none. You know, Dave, there is dissension within your ranks as well.

Brendan Byrne, a Jesuit and member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Joseph Fitzmyer, professor emeritus of biblical studies at the Catholic University of America, and Raymond E. Brown, late professor emeritus of biblical studies at Union Theological Seminary, New York, all concede that the Pauline dikaioo has primarily and fundamentally a forensic meaning (to declare righteous), as I have stated, and shown on this thread. (The info concerning those gentlemen is current as of 2001, I don’t know what they are up to today.)

Also, the Second Vatican Council document, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (1964), that asserts on the one hand Trent’s medieval doctrine of justification also makes the entire doctrine of justification irrelevant on the other hand by teaching that all sincere people are saved, whatever their faith or lack of it (see para. 16).

We interrupt your broadcast for a very important chessmatch …

“Check!” said the risk-taker Sandusky. And the audience is astonished that Sandusky would attempt such a bold move as to pilfer the claim from Robert Reymond’s book The Reformation’s Conflict with Rome: Why it must continue without citing him as the source, or verifying Reymond’s sloppy scholarship regarding Fr. Fitzmyer, et. al., heretofore known as the “Fitzmyer Gambit.”

This was a big risk on Sandusky’s part, and rather astonishing to use against an experience argumentarian such as Itsjustdave1988. Surely he must know that, although Dave prefers the writings of Rev. Spurgeon to the writings of Fr. Fitzmyer, unlike most of Sandusky’s opponents, Dave has actually READ what Fr. Fitzmyer et. al., asserted, whereas it appears Sandusky has not, but simply lifted the words from his Calvinist apologist playbook, without verifying it’s veracity, just as the Calvinist seminarian tried against Dave back in March of 2005.

The crowd is wondering how Dave will respond? …

So that you can see the what Robert Reymond’s claim says, from the above text, pg 139-140:

“… Brenden Byrne, a Jesuit and member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Joseph Fitzmyer, professor emeritus of biblical studies at the Catholic University of America, and Raymond E. Brown, late professor emeritus of biblical studies at Union Theological Seminary, New York) concede that the Pauline “diakiow” has primarily a forensic meaning (to declare righteous); and second, that the very same document of the Second Vatical Council, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (1964), that asserts on the one hand Trent’s medieval doctrine of justification, as Nick Needham has noted and has described as the “ultimate paradox,” also makes the entire doctrine irrelevant on the other by teaching that all sincere people are saved, whatever their faith or lack of it (see paragraph 16)”

The crowd is anxious … wait for it…wait for it… ah yes, the well-known defense of posting what Fr. Fitzmyer asserts using the actual words from Fr. Fitzmyer…

continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

The following quotation is taken from the Jerome Biblical Commentary by Fr. Raymond Brown, Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer, & Fr. Roland Murphy, ed. (1996, c1968. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, N.J.)

97 This justification as a divine act implies a declaration that sinful man is upright before God. Does this mean that he is merely declared to be so—when he is really a sinner—by some legal fiction? We might expect that dikaioô, like other Gk verbs ending in -oô, would have a causative, factitive meaning: “to make someone dikaios” (cf. douloô, “enslave”; nekroô, “mortify”; anakainoô, “renew”; etc.). But in the LXX, dikaioôseems normally to have a declarative, forensic meaning. At times this seems to be the only sense intended in Paul’s letters (cf. Rom 8:33); but many instances are ambiguous. One can certainly not appeal to this forensic sense to exclude a more radical transformation of man through the Christ-event, making it the essence of the Christian experience, as it were. For justification is really the placing of man in a status of uprightness in the sight of God through the association of him with the salvific activity of Christ Jesus—through the incorporation of him in Christ and his Church through faith and baptism. The result of this justification is that the Christian becomes dikaios(upright); he is not just declared to be so but is actually constituted such (katastathçsontai, Rom 5:19). Paul recognizes that as a Christian he no longer has an uprightness of his own, based on the Law, but one acquired through faith in Christ, an “uprightness from God” (Phil 3:8-9). And the Christian in union with Christ is even said to become “the uprightness of God” (2 Cor 5:21).

And regarding Abraham’s justification, the same Brown-Fitzmyer-Murphy source states:

It would be false to Paul’s whole theology to understand his use of Gn 15:6 to mean a mere legal fiction, that uprightness was imputed to Abraham, although he was not really upright. Theoretically, the words could mean no more than this. But there is not the slightest hint either in the Gn story or in Paul’s treatment that Abraham was not previously upright. Again, Paul’s ideas about faith and uprightness otherwise indicate that in the sight of God, who sees things as they are, Abraham’s faith counted as uprightness; it was formally recognized to be just what it was. The manifestation of his faith was de se justifying.

… Itsjustdave says, “Check!”…and the crowd goes wild!!!

continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

As to the absurdity of the second claim, it wasn’t Vatican II that made such a claim, it was Baptist minister Rev. Nick Needam’, absurd as it is.

Rev. Needham claims erroneously:

An official footnote [to paragraph 16] elaborates: ‘The Council is careful to add that men unacquainted with the biblical revelation, and even those who have not arrived at explicit faith in God, may by the grace of Christ attain salvation if they sincerely follow the lights God gives them.’

Yet, Lumen Gentium par. 16 makes no such claim!!! Nor does it claim what Sandusky asserted!! Furthermore, as we search and search for the “official footnote” to par. 16 which Needham is referencing…we also find no such thing, but in fact discover the exact opposite!!!

You can look for yourself… the only two footnotes to par 16 of *Lumen Gentium *are these:

(18) Cfr. S. Thomas, Summa Theol. III, q. 8, a. 3, ad 1.

(19) Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-72.

Nowhere does it say that that one can be saved who does not have faith in God. In fact, in footnote 18 from St. Thomas Aquinas states:
“Those who are unbaptized, though not actually in the Church, are in the Church potentially. And this potentiality is rooted in two things–first and principally, in the power of Christ, which is sufficient for the salvation of the whole human race; secondly, in free-will.” (Summa Theologica, III, 8, 3)

Nothing backing Rev. Needham’s (or Sandusky’s) claim there.

Let’s look at Footnote 19. It is the Letter of the Holy See to Archbishop of Boston refuting Feeneyism, the letter was approved and promulgated by Pope Pius XII. It stated explicitly:

God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God….But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): “Faith is the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children” (Denzinger, n. 801).

Hmmm… when one actually reads Fr. Fitzmyer, et. al., and Lumen Gentium and the “official footnotes” to determine the connotation of the texts, one discovers that Robert Reymond’s polemics and that of Sandusky is simply sloppy scholarship. You find instead that Vatican II agrees with Trent that “without [faith] it is impossible to please God and attain to fellowship of His children”

Dave says, “Checkmate” and the crowd is one their feet!!!

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program…

 

[Sherlock]

The cheering crowd hoists a humble itsjustdave onto their shoulders, and blushing young maidens throw nosegays as the throng makes its triumphant way down the city streets, and an enterprising sculptor quickly fashions a paper mache statue of a smiling Victory crowning a kneeling itsjustdave with the traditional crown of laurel…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Bene, Your claim seems to be that we are not justified by “faith alone” if is the kind of faith Abraham had in Gen 12, what C.H. Spurgeon and Sandusky call “genuine faith.”

How much “content” must be added to “faith alone” to make “faith alone” that which justifies?? What precise content was missing from Abraham’s faith in Gen 12, but was present in Gen 15?

Sandusky, Your claim is even more perplexing, because you are asserting that we are not justified by “genuine faith alone” which you admit Abraham had in Gen 12.

How much “genuine faith” or how long must one have “genuine faith” to be justified by “faith alone?” How do you know you have that much “genuine faith” so that you can be assured that you are justified?

You both are being contradictory. How do each of you know you have the right “content” in you faith, or the right amount of “genuine faith” such that you have assurance that you are saved?

The answers are various everytime I ask Protestants about Abraham’s faith. Yet every answer, every one of them, lead to contradiction if one attempts to hold fast to Protestant soteriology.

This is especially true of Calvinists like Sandusky, who absurdly assert we can have assurance of once saved always saved. The logical conclustion is that NOBODY can know when they have the “geniune faith” long enough to know that they are justified. Where the eternal security in that?

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

wpr,

Salvation has always been, and will always be, by faith alone, both in the O.T., as evidenced in Gen 15, and in the N.T., as God does not change his M.O. from old to new with respect to the requirement that one must “believe” to be justified. Belief alone saves; belief “and ______” (fill in the blank) cannot save, because it goes beyond God’s established parameter of justification which is faith alone.

All great stuff and I don’t think there is any great disagreement.
You believe in “belief alone” though you will insist that everyone who has saving faith - and has the opportunity and means to do so - will perform good works during their earthly life(not as a cause salvation, but as a result of it). Regardless of why they do it, those who have salvific faith will do the good works
God has provided. I simply see no reason from that perspective NOT to question ones faith when they are, in fact, not producing the fruit of good works. It is only natural to question it. It is only logical to question it. For a tree is known by its fruit. And that is the only relevent question to the “faith alone” debate. Nobody is promoting salvation by works alone.
My question remains regarding your comment “God’s established parameter of justification which is faith alone”: Why would God allow into Scripture James 2:24? If it does not mean what it says, but instead means precisely the OPPOSITE of what it says(in the usual context of the term justification) and it requires such elaborate interpretation that even a theologian of Luther’s rank couldn’t find it, why would God include it in sacred Scripture? It makes no sense to me.
Im sure that the problem is all mine and that my logic is messing me up.

Phil

 

[wpr]

I already explained it in my post. I would try to re-explain it to you, however, I’m sure your problem is not my lack of clarity or your lack of ability to comprehend what I wrote, but more of a refusal.

I’m trying Bene. Patience please.

As for me, I’ll start by a simple apology for my sarcasm in my previous post. Although I beleive it was legitimate criticism of your interpretation. I actually thought it was kinda funny at first, but I realize now it was hurtfull. Sorry

Bottom line, neither you nor I or Dave can get around the FACT that only in Gen. 15 did God reckon Abraham’s faith to him as righteousness.

So, we now have the correct Protestant Biblical teaching established. Abraham was forensically imputed in Gn 15:6 and NOT beforehand.

Sandusky, if you care to correct this, feel free. If not, I’l just let it slide.

And even James MUST be interpreted with that FACT in view.

Thank you. This is the answer to my other question about how I need to view James. Can I safely include Romans, Galations, and Hebrews as well?

Your tone aside, your message is clear.

First…forensic imputation,
Then…interpretation. Fair enough?

But does it hold up to Scripture? Can I dissent for a bit and ask for clarification?

1. Why would the “sacred author of Hebrews”(thanks Dave) use the faith of Abraham in Gn 12 (Hb 11:8) if he thought it not adequate yet to have secured (past tense) forensic imputation?

Why no exemplification in Hebrews 11 of the moment of Abraham’s clear recorded forensic imputation? He just blows past it listing it just like all the other examples of Abaham’s faith up to and including the near sacrifice of Isaac.

Was he just wrong to sight the Gn 12 faith in the same context as the faith of Noah?

1. What about James 2?

First, was I not told that “dikaioo” is primarily forensic in it’s usage and even Catholic theologins had agreed? (see, I’m listening Bene, and I know it was Sandusky).

So why is it that in James 2:21 the meaning of “dikaioo” changes to “sanctification”? On what basis? Does it better fit the context? Did I misunderstand you?

On that note, why does James 2:23 refer to Gn 15:6, just like Paul? Is James clumsy or does he not understand the meaning of “dikaisune” the same as Paul did in Rm 4? Why use the same word form (dikaioo and dikaisune) to bounce back and forth in the same paragraph between “justification” and “sanctification”. Why not just pick a better Greek word to avoid confusion? Does “dikaisune” mean different things to Paul and James?

Further, when was Rahab imputed forensically? Do we have a record? If not, why does James use “dikaioo” for her as well and say (Jm 25 “And in the same way…”)? Is he clumsy? Why would James use the example of a harlot to show your supposed “sanctification” in the same breath as Abraham? The same Abraham you insist did not inherit his forensic imputation until Gn 15:6 (even after displaying great faith for many years and trials).

How can Rahab be “sanctified” if she was not yet forensically imputed? Or was Jame refering to her forensic imputation moment? If so, I ask, on what basis do you see “dikaioo” used as a different meaning than Jm 2:21 just 3 verses later in Jm 2:25? Consider also that the sentence in which it was used the next two words are “by works”.

Either James is clumsy, or he’s Catholic in my view. Am I wrong?

Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, God’s only Son whom He actually delivered up for your sins, and like Abraham, you too will be reckoned righteous.

How’s that for a short, evangelistic pitch?

I like it!

However, honestly Bene, from your interpretation of Scripture it seems disingenuous. Please hear me out. In my sarcasm in my previous post I was trying to make this same point.

Paul and James point to Abraham as an example of the faith we need. Yet you tell me Abraham was not imputed until Gn 15:6. How can you claim that simple acceptance of Christ is enough and use Abraham as an example? Would not your subject “evangelee” rightly question your assertion?

Keeping in mind, that, I think Abraham was justified in Gn 12 (maybe before).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Sherlock:

The cheering crowd hoists a humble itsjustdave onto their shoulders, and blushing young maidens throw nosegays as the throng makes its triumphant way down the city streets, and an enterprising sculptor quickly fashions a paper mache statue of a smiling Victory crowning a kneeling itsjustdave with the traditional crown of laurel…

Thank you … thank you… the crowd has been so kind to me.

I think I shall retire for the day, ready for another chess match tomorrow.

 

[sandusky]

itsjustdave1988:

continued…

As to the absurdity of the second claim, it wasn’t Vatican II that made such a claim, it was Baptist minister Rev. Nick Needam’, absurd as it is.

Rev. Needham claims erroneously:

Yet, Lumen Gentium par. 16 makes no such claim!!! Nor does it claim what Sandusky asserted!! Furthermore, as we search and search for the “official footnote” to par. 16 which Needham is referencing…we also find no such thing, but in fact discover the exact opposite!!!

You can look for yourself… the only two footnotes to par 16 of *Lumen Gentium *are these:

(18) Cfr. S. Thomas, Summa Theol. III, q. 8, a. 3, ad 1.

(19) Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-72.

Nowhere does it say that that one can be saved who does not have faith in God. In fact, in footnote 18 from St. Thomas Aquinas states:

Nothing backing Rev. Needham’s (or Sandusky’s) claim there.

Let’s look at Footnote 19. It is the Letter of the Holy See to Archbishop of Boston refuting Feeneyism, the letter was approved and promulgated by Pope Pius XII. It stated explicitly:

Hmmm… when one actually reads Fr. Fitzmyer, et. al., and Lumen Gentium and the “official footnotes” to determine the connotation of the texts, one discovers that Robert Reymond’s polemics and that of Sandusky is simply sloppy scholarship. You find instead that Vatican II agrees with Trent that “without [faith] it is impossible to please God and attain to fellowship of His children”

Dave says, “Checkmate” and the crowd is one their feet!!!

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program…The Dogmatic Constitution of the Church is on the web to read. I have read it, and para 16, and that is what it says. JPII as well, articulated those very words during his papacy, as well placing his faith in Mary, “totally yours.”

You are making excuses for your theology. That’s all you can do, there is no defense for those statements.

Justification by sincerity is false, and it is deadly.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Sandusky’s claim:

the Second Vatican Council document, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (1964), that asserts on the one hand Trent’s medieval doctrine of justification also makes the entire doctrine of justification irrelevant on the other hand by teaching that all sincere people are saved, whatever their faith or lack of it (see para. 16).

"teaching that all sincere people are saved, whatever their faith or lack of it " hmmm… shall we search for this in par. 16, which sandusky cites as his “source” for this teaching…

Lumen Gentium par. 16:

1. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126); But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”,(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

Oh, no…sandusky embarassed again. NOTHING about one being saved although they lack faith anywhere to be seen. What a dissappointing rebuttal from the Calvinist sandusky.

At least Dave has actually read CH. Spurgeon. You’d think sandusky would try to read a little more about what he so polemically disagrees with.

Lumen Gentium says they are “related in various ways,” to the Church explicitly referring to what St. Thomas Aquinas stated in Summa Theologica in accordance with footnote 18, ““in the Church potentially” rooted in the **”*power of Christ" ***and **“free will.” **Nope nothing about being saved without faith there. :dancing:

“Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*),” which in accord with footnote 19, which states that such “certain unconscious desire” to be joined to the Church must include “supernatural faith” and “perfect charity” or they cannot be saved. :dancing:

Sandusky’s absurd and unscholastic claims fail again!!!

He really should take my advice, and stick to telling us what Calvinisim teaches, as he lacks any understanding of what Catholicism teaches.

 

[sandusky]

Dogmatic Constitution of the Church:

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.

Mohamdedans do not adore the same God. Their’s is one, the God of the Bible is 3 in 1. Or do you indeed think that they adore the same God as those who call themselves Christians?
Dogmatic Constitution of the Church:

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.

They cannot attain salvation by their deeds. You have been arguing against that, saying that initial justification is by faith. Are you now making exception, and saying that only applies to those who hear the Gospel? Nor can they attain salvation by following the dictates of their conscience. Acts 4:12 makes that clear. No other name, not in the name of deeds, nor in the name of the dictates of one’s conscience, but in the Name of Christ must one be saved.
Dogmatic Constitution of the Church:

Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.

This too, is contra scripture. No one gains eternal life by striving to live a good life, but by faith in Christ. This is an Arminian, Pelagian position, that is stating that men must make the first move to God by striving to live a good life, and that God then provides the necessary helps. That is works-righteousness—merit, and reward. Again, you spent time on this thread denying that. Are you changing your mind?
Dogmatic Constitution of the Church:

Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.

This statement sounds good, but coming, as it does, on the heels of the preceding statements makes me continue to wonder, what do you believe? One cannot do good apart from Christ, as He himself states (Jn 15:5). As far as any truth in them, Paul is quite clear that that kind of truth is sufficient only to condemn them (Rom 1:20).

You can only try to excuse what is contained in those statements. They are contra scripture.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Sandusky, although his credibility is almost non-existent by now, tries to slip in this rebuttal…

… JPII as well, articulated those very words during his papacy

Easy to thrust out claims without a verifiable source, huh?

Yet, according to John Paul II approved and promulgated the following, from Dominus Iesus:

… some prayers and rituals of the other religions may assume a role of preparation for the Gospel, in that they are occasions or pedagogical helps in which the human heart is prompted to be open to the action of God. One cannot attribute to these, however, a divine origin … Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that other rituals, insofar as they depend on superstitions or other errors (cf. 1 Cor 10:20-21), constitute an obstacle to salvation…

John Paul II also approved and promulgated the *Catechism of the Catholic Church, "*without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life " (CCC 161)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

sandusky:

Mohamdedans do not adore the same God. …

Oh, so now your moving on to other polemics, seeing that you FAILED in your original claim? Do you really think that kind of dodging will help your credibility Sandusky? Go back and find me where it says that one can be saved without faith AS YOU HAVE CLAIMED. If you cannot, I will understand. However, jumping to other issues is a sign of defeat. You simply want to try another chess match as if nobody would notice that you were just trounced in the last match.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Again, you spent time on this thread denying that. Are you changing your mind?

I deny nothing authentically taught as Catholic doctrine by the Catholic magisterium. I do reject your caricature of that teaching, however, as it is nothing more than an unconvincing strawman and everyone with common sense reading this thread will draw the same conclusion.