Regeneration/Born-Again

[bene7]

wpr:

Bene, I love you. But, I’m still with Dave. I gotta say, it was a good try, but I just don’t buy that the Spirit was so subtle in Gn 12 and Gn 15, but left stuff so difficult to render elsewhere…

Believe me, “wrp,” when I say I am quite grieved that you refuse to “buy it.” It’s not “subtle,” at all but noticeably distinctive to the mind of a true spiritual man. Salvation/justificaton is never about* what*, but who one has actually put his/her faith in. Now the difference here can be “subtle” to the religious mind.

But thank you so much for sharing with us the tragedy and the grief your neighbors are experiencing. I will pray that through it all their hearts might not become hardened toward the Lord but instead, like Abraham, through the working of the Holy Spirit, come to know/believe in Him in a far more personal way.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[sandusky]

wpr:

Sandusky
I was touched by your story. I am so joyous that you found strength in our Lord. (even if I still think you can’t reconcile James ) And I hope you were not a swabby in 1942! My sincere thanks for your service to this country!

Thanks. I was in the amphibious navy from 1969-1973.

wpr:

Our neighbors lost a 9 year old son on Dec 20 to a car wreck. The mom pulled out onto a country road and was hit broadside. By her admission to close friends, it was her fault, she just did not see the pick-up truck coming. Needless to say, she suffers.

Now, this family are parishioners, but not attending mass regularly. I know not the strength of their faith. I pray that the Lord grants peace to this grieving mother. I pray that she may look to the cross and hear the words of Christ as he calls out in despair, to His Father. I hope this trial may bring her closer to knowing God.

I will pray for the mother’s comfort, and the comfort of her family, and that the Lord would draw them to Himself.

 

[wpr]

You are speculating. I know for certain from what Paul is saying that they thought they were justified by keeping the law, but Paul says law keeping, and works do not justify.

True, I do speculate. But not without Biblical evidense that a Jew would have thought Abraham had faith in Gn 12. Hebrews 11 provides credance to my speculation that the faith may be said in the same breath as that of Noah. No?

I don’t think so. Paul says works do not justify. Scripture is clear that God is not obligated to save anyone, neither is He obligated to provide for anyone, but He is merciful, so He does provide, and He is just, so He does justify.

I don’t disagree at all.

I see I have to clarify (my translation NAB). Gal 10 says “For all who depend on “works of the law” are under a curse.” I checked a translation I have from a Bible published in the 1800’s (from my Gr Gr Grandfather) Gal 10 " for as many as are of the works of the law, are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed in one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."

So Paul is warning them to not go back to the old way of the Jews and depend on “works of the law” to be justified. No?

I’m Catholic, I do not depend on work for justification. I believe "the grace of the HS has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse of of our sins and to communicate to us “the rightioueness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” and through Baptism.

I do not depend on “works of the law” or any works for salvation.

St Therese Lisieux says it " After earths exile I hope to go and enjoy you in the fatherland, but I do not want to lay up my merits for heaven. I want to work for your love alone. I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you Lord to count my works. All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possesion of yourself. CCC 2011.

Do we disagree that a good work done without a mind to obligate God and with faith in Christ does merit justice before God? For “We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him”. That is, Keeping in mind that it cannot be ignored that we are moved to faith first by the Spirit and thus all good works are of the Spirit, yet we do participate of our free will.

I believe we are called to holiness. Can the justified be even more justified? I think that’s the question? I think yes! But not without grace and not without Jesus Christ.

I think that today, most of those who call themselves Christians believe believe that they will get to heaven because they are good people, who lead good lives.

Yes, I believe this is true. It is a sad departure from the Gospel. I’ve experienced such false sentiments in a small faith group as well as family members and friends. (both Catholic and Protestant)

Bene is not dishonest, but sincere.

Yes, I agree! Poor choice of words on my part. I should have stuck to the facts and stated what I meant in positive terms. I beleive your position, as I understand it, (forensic imputation may have happened prior to Gn 15:6) is less at odds with Hebrews and James. I only say “less” because I’m not 100% sure I can say “not”.

How is that?

My questions and previous posts make that point.

 

[bene7]

wpr:

Bene, I gotta say, it was a good try, but I just don’t buy that the Spirit was so subtle in Gn 12 and Gn 15, but left stuff so difficult to render elsewhere…

Call me the fool for trying again, wpr, but think about what’s revealed there in Genesis 12 & 15. In chapter twelve it’s the Lord who approaches Abraham, presents a covenant to him and all Abraham needs to do is leave his homeland and go the land which the Lord will show him. If he does God will unconditionally fulfill all that is specified in that covenant. And Abraham, by faith, leaves Ur.

But that’s not the end of God’s dealings with Abraham, for Abraham is not to become the father of all who obeyed the commands of the Lord, but all those who believe in the Lord and are justified.

ROM 4:16 “For this reason it is by faith, that it might be in accordance with grace, in order that the promise may be certain to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all”

In Gen. 15 again it’s the Lord who approaches Abraham and tells him not to be afraid but that He is a shield to him (no harm will come to him), and his reward will be very great. This then turns the conversation to Abraham’s concern about an heir - Abraham’s childless. And the Lord promises him that he will have an heir, a direct descendant from his own body (a “promised son” miraculously born through Sarah).

Now in both Gen. 12 and 15 it is the Lord who always first approaches Abraham. But in 15:6, for the first time, Abraham turns and, through personal faith, approaches the Lord. This is most significant. Because in that one verse we see an intimate change in Abraham toward the Lord, AND a sovereign change by the Lord toward Abraham. Abraham, for the first time personally believes in Him, and based on that personal faith, He reckons his faith to him as righteousness. Not only did Abraham intimately change his relationship toward God by personally believing “in Him,” but God then sovereignly changed His relationship toward Abraham by justifying him. All within the context of a promised son. A son whom we later see is portrayed as a type of Christ who was yet to come (Gen. 22; cf. Heb. 11:17-19). The “Door” by which we approach God.

Wpr, it’s clear from Gen. 15:6 and on into the New Testament that God does not justify any man by obeying commands (under the principle of law). And it is made even more evident in the N.T. Scriptures, i.e., this side of the cross, that no man is sovereignly justified by God until he himself (like Abraham) personallly turns to the Lord believing what He has accomplished FOR HIM, once for all, through the sacrificial death and resurrection of His own Son. Anything added to this faith constitutes unbelief.

In the N.T. it’s revealed that God has now approached all men through the Person of His Son whom He sent into this world. It is through personal faith in the Son, only, that a man can turn and approach God and be saved.

JOH 10:9 “I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture” (cf. Jn. 14:6).

Any and all works are excluded:

ROM 4:5 "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"

Nothing has changed regarding justification through faith alone since Gen. 15:6.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[wpr]

Call me the fool for trying again, wpr, but think about what’s revealed there in Genesis 12 & 15.

Bene, you are no fool. No doubt you are far past me in biblical knowlege. But… a few points are worth noting…

1. From Gn 12 we know Abraham is 75 yrs old and we know from Gn 11 that his wife is barren. So, I think it more than obediance. But let’s not take my word…
2. The faith of Gn 12 is also mentioned in the same breath as that of Noah by the Author of Hebrews. “He went out not knowing where he was to go” and with a barren wife at age 75! So there is Biblical credance to the action in Gn 12 being more than obediance.

Plus, in Rm 4:5 Paul broadens the specific case of Gn 15:6 by making a more general statement “but when one does not work, yet beleives in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited to him as rightiousness.” So this applies to everyone (I hope), not just Abraham in Gn 15.

1. Also, in Gn 15:8, Abraham still asks the Lord, “How am I to know that I shall posses it?” (the Land). He sounds like he’s still doubting. He sounds like the same Abraham to me that he’s been since Gn 12.

Then, in Gn 22 the angel says “I know now how devouted you are to God”. Then, Gn 22:16: I swear by myself [He can do that] declares the Lord, that because you acted as you did in not witholding from me your beloved son, I will bless you abundantly and make your descendants as countless as the stars of the sky…"

Why does God confirm in Gn 22 he will keep his promise based on Abraham’s faith as proved by his action? (Paul and James are not at odds)

This story of the “path of faith” of Abraham does not point to a one time event to me. It points to a life of faith. The irony is I beleive Abraham was rightious before God in Gn 12.

…to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all

"

No problem! Like the faith of Abraham. Amen.

[But in 15:6, for the first time

, Abraham turns and, through personal faith, approaches the Lord. This is most significant. Because in that one verse we see an intimate change in Abraham toward the Lord,

I don 't see the change. It’s the same Abraham. He even turns around and asks for proof in the same breath! (It was a very artfull paragraph though, nice job )

Wpr, it’s clear from Gen. 15:6 and on into the New Testament that God does not justify any man by obeying commands (under the principle of law).

Yes, I agree.

Do you think I beleive I can be justified by any works not done in Christ without first being justified by grace and faith in Jesus Christ? This is rather the point, no? I don’t, so what’s the problem?

I don’t beleive in imputed forensic justification.

A. I think it relies on overreaching “predestination”
B. The assertion of absolute human knowlege of salvation is overly emotive in it’s draw.
C. The absolute assurance is sold under the false pretense of assurance that one is among the “elect of God”.

That is, when one who clearly rejects Christ having once professed faith in him, and having once claimed irrevocable salvation, is said to have “never believed”.

Dave asked and I still ask, where is the assurance in that?

(Sandusky, Bene, I do believe many who beleive as you do are sincere)

And it is made even more evident in the N.T. Scriptures, i.e., this side of the cross, that no man is sovereignly justified by God until he himself (like Abraham) personallly turns to the Lord believing what He has accomplished FOR HIM.

No problem. Amen (without conceding when Abraham turned to the Lord though )

In the N.T. it’s revealed that God has now approached all men through the Person of His Son whom He sent into this world. It is through personal faith in the Son, only, that a man can turn and approach God and be saved.

Amen! But, why do you have to use the word “personal” and I hesitate at the word “only”. I’d like to say “only then…”. How do you “approach God”? (think like a Catholic for a moment)

Nothing has changed regarding justification through faith alone since Gen. 15:6.

Only it is not through “faith alone” as James points out. Here we go round the mulberry bush…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Bene,

I hope this satisfies your question as to what *kind of faith *Abraham possessed in Gen. 15 that he did not possess in Gen. 12.

I understand you, but obviously disagree.

"By Faith (Gk “pistis"), Abraham … obeyed” (Heb 11:8).

From Vine’s Expository of New Testament Words:

pistis
“faith,” is translated “belief” in Rom. 10:17; 2 Thess. 2:13. Its chief significance is a conviction respecting God and His Word and the believer’s relationship to Him.

Thus, in Gen 12 and in Gen 15, and in Gen 22, Abraham believed God. He had the same kind of faith in Gen 12 that all those in Heb 11 had.

“a man is justified by faith (pistis)” (Rom 3:28)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The noun “faith” (pistis) has a verb form in the NT, which is translated “to believe” (pisteuo).

According to the Protestant source Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), by Kittel, et. al., abridged in one volume by Bromiley:

“pisteuo as “to believe”… to denote the relationship with God”

"pisteuo as “to obey.” Heb 11 stressed that to believe is to obey, as in the OT … believing means obeying.

*Thayer’s Lexicon *comments on pistis in Heb 11:8, saying:

*by faith *or by believing, prompted, actuated by faith

When Heb 11 teaches us that “By faith Abraham obeyed” they are saying that Abraham believed.

 

[sandusky]

itsjustdave1988:

The noun “faith” (pistis) has a verb form in the NT, which is translated “to believe” (pisteuo).

According to the Protestant source Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), by Kittel, et. al., abridged in one volume by Bromiley:

*Thayer’s Lexicon *comments on pistis in Heb 11:8, saying:

When Heb 11 teaches us that “By faith Abraham obeyed” they are saying that Abraham believed.

Dave,

You continue to hammer away at Gen 12 in an attempt to connect justification to sanctification. Although you haven’t explicitly stated that, I can see no other reason for your doing what you are doing, except to prove that justification occurs over and over again, each time someone believes. Why bother. You already believe that justification occurs over and over again, as it can be lost by sin, and regained by confession and penance, why do care if I agree or disagree?

When Paul speaks of Abraham in Rom 4, it is Abraham’s belief in Gen 15 that Paul is concerned about. Paul does so because he is explaining how one is justified before God—by faith alone, in a forensic declaration, as even Fitzmyer writes in his commentary on Romans.

The writer of Hebrews is talking about Abraham’s—and everyone else’s—deeds in the course of their lives. He is not attempting to make a soteriological statement. We know this, because he says in 11:3: by faith we…

Clearly he is talking to those who already believe, and he is not giving them a lesson in salvation, but an encouragement in living a life of faith even if life gets difficult.

He goes on to catalogue a list of faithful saints, and, with respect to Abraham, mentions more than just his faith in Gen 11, but in other places as well. He drives to his conclusion, which is reached and finished in 12:1-3. His conclusion in a nutshell: live a life of faith like those faithful ones before you.

Again, salvation is not in view here; it is assumed.

And again, Paul speaks of Abraham’s belief in Gen 15 to explain how a man is justified before God—by faith alone.

As with James and Paul, so with Paul and the writer of Hebrews: two different themes. Quit trying to force them to say what they are not saying.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

sandusky:

…

As I read your statement as to how a Catholic is justified (and I understand that there is more to it with respect to baptism, etc.), I am stymied. The question arises: why are we divided on this issue? It is almost as if your statement is saying that the last 500+ years have been nothing but a mistake, and a misunderstanding. But I don’t believe that.”

Clearly we have distinct doctrinal differences, and those differences having to do with truth.

Again, I still have difficulty with your explanation as I read the documents from Trent, as those documents are written against the reformers, and your explanation, as offered, agrees with the reformers.

It seems to me Luther’s works were so many and varied, quite often contradictory, that it is difficult to nail down what he meant by his doctrine of justification. It also appears that there were no shortage of those like Calvin who protested against the other protestors. Even the Lutherans of the Lutheran World Federation protest against the Missouri Synod Lutherans.

Nevertheless, in accord with canon 9, Trent rejected any “faith alone” doctrine which is contrary to the following teachings:.

1. It must be held that man could willfully reject supernatural interventions by God intended to enlighten and strengthen the soul. This is what is meant by “cooperation” in canon 9. This is like my Cain example. God spoke directly to Cain (a grace) in order to enlighten him. Cain rejected it. This is supernatural grace which is called by Catholic theology "actual grace” which does not justify, but yet prepares the soul for further grace if the unjust man does not willfully reject it.
2. It must be held that besides faith, further gifts must be present within those justified by God, such as love and hope.

I have not met many Calvinists who can agree to the two teachings above. In 2003, I had a discussion with one Calvinist who asserted to me:

ANY work cancels faith. Works is anything that goes beyond belief. That would include love
The above version of “faith alone” for example, is condemned by the teaching of Trent still today.

So, it appears that there are some things that we can agree upon with regard to the doctrine of justification.

1. 
   *]Natural works cannot transform an unrighteous man to righteousness
   *]Perfect adherence to the law, either the Law of Moses or the law of man cannot transform an unrighteous man to righteousness.
   *]Only the gift of justification from God, through the merit of Christ, can transform the unrighteous to righteousness.
   *]Meritorious work is the fruit of justification.
   *]God rewards the justified man for worthy (axios) deeds (ergon), to include reward in heaven.
   *]Only a justified man, born again in Christ can do such worthy deeds. The unjustified man cannot, no matter how hard he follows the law or nature, ever be supernaturally rewarded for his natural deeds.
   *]Nothing done before justification by an unjustified man can merit the grace of justification. Even though you disagree that a just man can become unjust, those who are not in what Catholics call a state of grace, cannot do anything to merit justification or the recovery of justification.
   
   continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

There are also some things which we are likely not to agree upon, such as:

1. 
   *]Justifying faith must include hope in God and love for him.
   *]Meritorious (axios) works (ergon) are not only rewarded in this life and rewards in heaven, but also rewarded with everlasting life in heaven
   *]Sanctification is an act of God that makes the just man really holy
   *]Justification is an act of God that pardons the unjust man, meaning he is forgiven of past sins by God and born again in Christ. An already just man can be justified still, meaning that he is pardoned still of any venial (non-mortal) sins committed after being born again in Christ, is renewed day by day, and given further gifts to increase or perfect one’s faith, increase love, and strengthen hope.
   *]Justification differs from sanctification, yet just as surely as faith differs from justification, one that is justified by faith in God is also made holy by God, as nothing unholy will enter heaven
   *]We can fall from our justified state to an unjustified state through what St. John calls “mortal sin.” In other words, those truly regenerated may be only regenerated for a time, and may not finally persevere in the genuine faith which God gave them.
   *]We can only be turned again (epistrepho) by God’s grace alone after such a fall, like Peter was.
   
   
   sandusky:
   I believe much in those chapters speak against your explanation
   
   I understand. However, Catholicism isn’t a correspondence course. NT Christians didn’t learn their faith by relying upon their reading comprehension skills alone, but also by hearing the faith taught every day by apostles, bishops, priests, and deacons. There’s two-way communication in every age of Christianity, because written words alone can be ambiguous or as Peter says of Paul’s letters, “There are some things in them hard to understand.” The Ethiopian eunuch, after St. Stephen asked him if he understood what was written said, “How can I unless I have someone to teach me.”
   
   Christianity was intended to be taught, not merely read, but also explained by those ordained by the apostles and their successors. And over time, old ways of expressing doctrines become even more difficult to understand as our culture and language changes, so like the magi who were led by God to the King of kings in ways suited to their unique time and cultural, God continues to lead his Church in ways suited to the condition she finds herself in. Always founded on God’s everlasting Word, sermons are renewed such that they make more sense in the context of our own day.
   
   I have many theology books that explain Trent, and I also hear the bishops, priests, and deacons teach me what Trent and all the councils of the Church taught. Catholicism is not based upon mere opinion of old documents, but on what the Church herself officially teaches.
   
   It seems that not only your interpretation of Scripture differs from the Catholic Church, but also your interpretation of Catholic teaching differs from the Catholic Church. Yet, I’m of the opinion that the Catholic Church knows authentically what Catholicism teaches, just as surely as the Presbyterian Church knows best what the Prebyterianism teaches.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

sandusky:

You continue to hammer away at Gen 12 in an attempt to connect justification to sanctification.

Not at all. I’m trying to show bene that faith and belief are synonymous, as he seemed to indicate that in Gen 12, Abraham has “faith” but did not yet believe the Lord until Gen 15. He will, I’m sure, stay with his absurd interpretation, but it is incorrect based upon the grammatical usage of the inspired texts.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

sandusky:

Quit trying to force them to say what they are not saying.

I’m not forcing a thing. Abraham was jusftified by faith, and he had faith in Gen 12 according to Scripture. Even Spurgeon agrees this is genuine faith. I simply pointing out that bene’s rebuttal was grammatically weak even by Protestant exegetical standards.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

sandusky,

Can you tell us what you believe about sanctification?

Luther claimed Christians are nothing but dung covered in snow. However, do you believe dung, even snow-covered dung will enter heaven? If not, then will Christians be actually made holy before they enter heaven? If so, when?

 

[bene7]

itsjustdave1988:

sandusky,

Can you tell us what you believe about sanctification?

Luther claimed Christians are nothing but dung covered in snow. However, do you believe dung, even snow-covered dung will enter heaven? If not, then will Christians be actually made holy before they enter heaven? If so, when?

I don’t have time to get into this right now, will make follow-ups, gotta go, but Luther was wrong.

I don’t know all of Sandusky’s understanding of sanctification but please read my post to Kendy # 259. In the Epistles all true believers are addressed as “saints.” It literally means “holy ones,” sanctified. It’s what sanctified means, set apart as holy (in respect to true believers).

“Reckoned” righteousness (that which is sovereignly declared, forensic) is not the same as “imputed” righteousness. The righteousness I NOW have (and am) being “in Christ Jesus.”

But I’ve got to run…
Later,
Bene

 

[itsjustdave1988]

bene7:

I don’t have time to get into this right now, will make follow-ups, gotta go, but Luther was wrong.

I don’t know all of Sandusky’s understanding of sanctification but please read my post to Kendy # 259. In the Epistles all true believers are addressed as “saints.” It literally means “holy ones,” sanctified. It’s what sanctified means, set apart as holy (in respect to true believers).

“Reckoned” righteousness (that which is sovereignly declared, forensic) is not the same as “imputed” righteousness. The righteousness I NOW have (and am) being “in Christ Jesus.”

But I’ve got to run…
Later,
Bene

Thanks Bene.

 

[sandusky]

itsjustdave1988:

1. It must be held that man could willfully reject supernatural interventions by God intended to enlighten and strengthen the soul. This is what is meant by “cooperation” in canon 9. This is like my Cain example. God spoke directly to Cain (a grace) in order to enlighten him. Cain rejected it. This is supernatural grace which is called by Catholic theology "actual grace” which does not justify, but yet prepares the soul for further grace if the unjust man does not willfully reject it.
2. It must be held that besides faith, further gifts must be present within those justified by God, such as love and hope.

With respect to your point #1, I would disagree because of the biblical statements on predestination and election. I believe that there is an “effectual” calling of God to the elect that they cannot resist, and that effectual is not, as I have seen described: “God forcing the creature to believe.”

I would agree with point #2 as worded with one exception: those justified by God will, by the transformation of re-birth wrought within them, have present within themselves love and hope, not of necessity, but as a result of the transformation. Love and hope are not listed in scripture as spiritual gifts per se; the believer’s hope is in Christ, and the love the believer has is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22).

itsjustdave1988:

So, it appears that there are some things that we can agree upon with regard to the doctrine of justification.

1. Natural works cannot transform an unrighteous man to righteousness
2. Perfect adherence to the law, either the Law of Moses or the law of man cannot transform an unrighteous man to righteousness.
3. Only the gift of justification from God, through the merit of Christ, can transform the unrighteous to righteousness.
4. Meritorious work is the fruit of justification.
5. God rewards the justified man for worthy (axios) deeds (ergon), to include reward in heaven.
6. Only a justified man, born again in Christ can do such worthy deeds. The unjustified man cannot, no matter how hard he follows the law or nature, ever be supernaturally rewarded for his natural deeds.
7. Nothing done before justification by an unjustified man can merit the grace of justification. Even though you disagree that a just man can become unjust, those who are not in what Catholics call a state of grace, cannot do anything to merit justification or the recovery of justification.

I would change #2 to read any kind of law, even God’s moral law; and in #4 I would remove the word meritorious; in #7, I am still not satisfied that the phrase cannot do anything to merit justification or the recovery of justification, is true, although I know that you claim it to be the Catholic teaching.

In general, you are correct about our disagreements.
isjustdave1988:

It seems that not only your interpretation of Scripture differs from the Catholic Church, but also your interpretation of Catholic teaching differs from the Catholic Church. Yet, I’m of the opinion that the Catholic Church knows authentically what Catholicism teaches, just as surely as the Presbyterian Church knows best what the Prebyterianism teaches.

True.

itsjustdave1988:

sandusky,

Can you tell us what you believe about sanctification?

Luther claimed Christians are nothing but dung covered in snow. However, do you believe dung, even snow-covered dung will enter heaven? If not, then will Christians be actually made holy before they enter heaven? If so, when?

See Bene’s post #259. I have yet to see attribution of that statement by Luther to Luther; it seems to be “legend.” I wouldn’t disagree with the analogy with respect to simul justus et peccator. As to when one will be perfectly holy, at the moment the believer dies and enters into the presence of His Lord.

 

[sandusky]

itsjustdave1988:

Not at all. I’m trying to show bene that faith and belief are synonymous, as he seemed to indicate that in Gen 12, Abraham has “faith” but did not yet believe the Lord until Gen 15. He will, I’m sure, stay with his absurd interpretation, but it is incorrect based upon the grammatical usage of the inspired texts.

How so? Where is either the word “faith,” or “believe,” found in the Gen 12 passage. Answer: nowhere.

itsjustdave1988:

When Heb 11 teaches us that “By faith Abraham obeyed” they are saying that Abraham believed.

Here again, as I said before, you are forcing the text to say what you want it to say, and what it is not saying.

The writer of Hebrews says Abraham had faith; where does he use the word “believe?” Answer: nowhere in his statements on Abraham.

It is true that belief and faith have the same root, but the translators, in this section of Hebrews, use the word “faith,” in every translation I can think of.

The reason for that is because in Hebrews 11:8, pistis, or “faith,” is used; if the writer meant “believed,” he would have used pisteuo, as Paul uses in Rom 4:3, and as the Septuagint uses in Gen 15:6. Both Paul and the Septuagint use the aorist, active, indicative of pisteuo: episteusen.

So, grammatically, Bene’s rebuttal is fine; grammatically, I find the weakness to be in your argument.

Are you offering your own translation? If so, say so; I have no problem with you offering a translation, many people do that, however, you must justify your translation, and I think you would have a hard time doing so.

I can’t help but have the feeling, that you are working toward something more than just trying to make Bene capitulate to your point. Are you?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I am still not satisfied that the phrase cannot do anything to merit justification or the recovery of justification, is true, although I know that you claim it to be the Catholic teaching.

What many non-Catholics get wrong is that Catholics teach God rewards the just with further graces. For some reason that is often portrayed as “recovery of justificaiton” which is incorrect.

One the conditions of salutary or meritorious acts is a state of grace. Consequently, it is theologically impossible to perform a salutory act when not already in a state of grace (i.e., justified). That’s what Trent means when it states that meritorious works are the fruit of justificaiton.

According to the 1909 Catholic Encyclopdedia:

meritoriousness of good works supposes the state of justification, or, what amounts to the same, the possession of sanctifying grace, supernatural merit is only an effect or fruit of the state of grace (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. VI, cap. xvi).

According to Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (1952), under the heading, “The Necessity of Grace for the Act of the Supernatural Order” it states:

For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary

Dr. Ott refers to the Council of Orange (529), canon 20: “***man does not good except that which God bring about that man performs” ***(Denzinger 193, cf. D 180). He states “The Council of Trent confirmed this doctrine in its Justification Decree, Can 1-3 (D 811-813). The Church’s teaching is opposed to Pelagianism and modern Rationalism.” (Ott, 4th edition, 1960, pg 229).

Dr. Ott’s book is used in Catholic universities and seminaries as a conspectus of all Catholic dogmatic theology. It has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur of the Church. Nihil Obstat means in Latin “nothing obstucts” and Imprimatur in Latin means, “Let it be printed.” This means there was a doctrinal review by competent ecclesial authority and that that review found nothing contary to Catholic doctrine contained within the text.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

sandusky:

I am still not satisfied that the phrase cannot do anything to merit justification or the recovery of justification, is true, although I know that you claim it to be the Catholic teaching.

Many non-Catholics get this wrong. They think Catholicism teaches “penance” restores justification, as you thought.

However, while God rewards worthy deeds of those already justified with further grace, it has always been held by Catholicism that worthy deeds can only be done by those already justified.

One of the necessary conditions of salutary or meritorious acts is a state of grace. Consequently, it is theologically impossible to perform a salutory act when not already in a state of grace (i.e., justified). That’s what Trent means when it states that meritorious works are the fruit of justificaiton.

According to the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia:

meritoriousness of good works supposes the state of justification, or, what amounts to the same, the possession of sanctifying grace, supernatural merit is only an effect or fruit of the state of grace (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. VI, cap. xvi). [Catholic Encyclopedia - Merit]

Likewise, according to Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (1952), under the heading, “The Necessity of Grace for the Act of the Supernatural Order” it states:

For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary

Dr. Ott refers to the Council of Orange (529), canon 20: “***man does not good except that which God bring about that man performs” ***(Denzinger 193, cf. D 180). He states “The Council of Trent confirmed this doctrine in its Justification Decree, Can 1-3 (D 811-813). The Church’s teaching is opposed to Pelagianism and modern Rationalism.” (Ott, 4th edition, 1960, pg 229).

Under the paragraph heading, “*The Reality of Supernatural Merits,” *Dr. Ott describes the teaching of the Church, stating:

The Second Council of Orange declared with St. Prosper of Aquitania and St. Augustine: “The reward given for good works is not won by reason of actions which precede grace, but grace, which is unmerited, precedes actions in order that they may be accomplished meritoriously”…

St. Augustine, in the stuggle against the Pelagians, emphasised the part played by grace in the performance of good works more strongly than did the earlier Fathers, but always taught the meritoriousness of good works perfomred with grace. [Augustine, Epistle 194, 5, 19]: "What merit of man is there before grace by which he can achieve grace, as only grace works every one of our good merits in us and as God, when He crowns our merits, crowns nothing else but His own gifts."

Dr. Ott’s book is used in Catholic universities and seminaries as a conspectus of all Catholic dogmatic theology. It has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur of the Church. Nihil Obstat means in Latin “nothing obstucts” and Imprimatur in Latin means, “Let it be printed.” This means there was a formal doctrinal review by competent ecclesial authority and that the review found nothing contary to Catholic doctrine contained within the text.

Ironically , C.H. Spurgeon asserted with regard to St. Augustine:

"Augustine obtained his views, without doubt, through the Spirit of God, from the diligent study of the writings of Paul, and Paul received them of the Holy Ghost, from Jesus Christ the great founder of the Christian dispensation. " (CH Spurgeon, Exposition of the Doctrines of Grace, Sermon no. 385, April 11th, 1861)

Yet, what the Doctor of Grace, St. Augustine taught, Calvin, Spurgeon, and Presbyterians reject.

C.H. Spurgeon preached:

… we cannot leave the old standard so long as we see it to be the very standard which floated in the hand of Paul, and which was handed by him through divers generations, through Chrysostom to Augustine, from Augustine to Calvin, and so on through the glorious race of mighty men who have not been ashamed of the gospel of Christ Jesus. " (CH Spurgeon, War, War, War, Sermon 250, May 1st, 1859

Ah, but Rev. Spurgeon, sadly you HAVE left the old standard which Paul, Chrysostom, and Augustine taught for the novel teachings of Calvin.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

sandusky:

How so? Where is either the word “faith,” or “believe,” found in the Gen 12 passage. Answer: nowhere.

I take the testimony of the Holy Spirit from Hebrews equally as from Genesis.

The writer of Hebrews says Abraham had faith; where does he use the word “believe?”

I’m asserting what the Protestant TDNT by Kittel, et. al, have stated, based upon grammatico-critical exegesis of the related texts: “Heb 11 stressed that to believe is to obey, as in the OT … believing means obeying.” I gather that this is an acceptable conclusion by Protestant exegesis of the Sacred Texts, othewise it is a rather odd thing for this protestant source to conclude.

To suggest Abraham had faith in Gen 12 but did not believe the Lord is ridiculous.