"The sufficiency of Grace" a continuation of "The sufficiency of Christ" family debate.

[2nd_Adam]

You know, I think this is true. I have been astonished today at the arrogance of someone who comes to a Catholic forum and directs the members about what they “need” to do in terms of their faith practice.

He also has taken it upon himself to “put” members into the “doghouse”, as though it were some sort of penalty box. It is rather concerning, actually, the imperious tone of it. If he is unable to correct it, he will not last long here. CAF is very tolerant of disagreement, since that is why the ministry is here, but there is a requirement that our faith be respected, and I have read three disrespectful posts just today.

Many of us continue to respond to such posts not because we think the individual is interested in learning from us, but for the sake of the lurkers. 2nd is voicing opinons and disagreements that many others have, but are not willing to post publicly. They are able to benefit from our responses, perhaps.

Hey Guan,

Let’s stick with the theological issues and the doctrine only with each other. When we try to judge each other’s heart and motive, we play God. From my perspective, you play like you are the Magisterium and crush all Catholics who disagree with you (Tweetymom and others). You have posted that you have reported me to the Moderators many times, yet the Moderators have yet to say anything to me. Your zeal to defend the Catholic Faith and your apologetics seem to miss the importance to do these things as an act of worship. God really doesn’t need me or you to defend the faith. He does quite well without our apologetics. I do find it interesting the Izoid and you like to side with Mormons to refute what I believe in. Do you actually have more in common with Mormonism than Protestantism?

 

[guanophore]

Why can’t I like both Pope Benedict and Martin Luther?

Because both of them (and Augustine as well) believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and you do not. Sometime you might wish to explore the nature of amanesis, and why the Passover Lamb had to by physically consumed.

 

[Rocket_Man]

I find it a constant curiousity that Protestants are allowed to light their second candle from the first, but when Catholics do this, it is considered “my works” or works of the flesh, rather than God working in us to will and to do His good pleasure.

Rather, I think the difference is the Catholic’s using the second candle (God working in us) to back light the first candle (justification) as if the first candle’s flame isn’t perfect enough to remain glowing.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Originally Posted by 2nd Adam
Why can’t I like both Pope Benedict and Martin Luther?

Because both of them (and Augustine as well) believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and you do not. Sometime you might wish to explore the nature of amanesis, and why the Passover Lamb had to by physically consumed.

You know the body of Christ is much more diverse than you think. We can learn to disagree agreeably and receive Christian teaching outside our own Christian circles. Are you trying to say that because I do not believe in the Eucharist in the exact same way as you that I cannot like or receive good teaching from Pope Benedict, Martin Luther, and Augustine? When Paul reveals in 1 Cor 13 that we know in part, does that exclude you? I think you need to give other Christians room to breath and to disagree agreeably, especially with other Catholics. Unless you are one of the Bishops that makeup the Magisterium, you are just one of one billion laity in the Catholic Church.

In Essentials, Unity, In Non-Essentials Diversity, In All Things Charity

Catholics need to find a way to work better with each other. That’s one of the things I’ve learned through my time using the internet. There is a tendency, and it is one I have as much as many others, to disregard others once we find we do not entirely agree with each other on a specific issue. Even if we are in the right, we often are not right in our interaction with others. Even if we are right, we end up proving ourselves to be in the wrong. Once we prove ourselves to be doctrinally correct, it is easy to fee that all those who disagree with us must, by their nature, be morally reprehensible, and the kind of person we should label with some sort of nasty name, before disengaging ourselves from them, never to work with them again. But it is quite difficult, and takes much time and energy, to really understand doctrine; we should be patient with those who have not engaged a specific doctrine as we have, who find the doctrine itself is new to them. They will have questions. We must be willing to engage them the best we can. Of course, they must also work to make sure the questions are not engaged as a way to excuse themselves from the doctrine, but to understand it better.

The worst thing to do is to label those we disagree with by some horrible name and then to try to blacklist them. Doing so will never impress outsiders; more importantly, it only serves to harden the hearts of those we criticize, to make sure no dialogue, no positive interaction, no change is possible. This is not the way a Catholic is to engage others. We are called to work with each other in charity. Even when we find out that others are gravely wrong on an issue, we are to interpret what they say charitably, and to work with what is held in common to bring them to a new understanding. It’s not easy. In the heat of a debate, I know I fail at doing it. It’s also not easy to remember that our own background, study, and experience, especially on those areas close to our hearts, will be different from others who have not explored those issues on the same level and in the same amount of detail. Just because they do not end up agreeing with us at the end of a given discussion does not mean they are obstinate. It just means that, as is to be expected, the dialogue is only beginning. We should keep the dialogue open by being willing to work with those same people in other areas, areas in which we agree, so that we can better understand each other, and from there, work to show in the light of that agreement how we can find better accord in areas of disagreement. But if we just cut people off once we can’t convince them they are wrong, all we do is prove ourselves insecure in our own position.

Recently, I have been impressed with the way some who hold positions I strongly protest (such on torture) have asked for further detail as to why people think they are wrong. Even though I do not think we have come to a common agreement, I think the openness is real, and the search for answers is real, and the worst thing would be to stop it by insult. On the other hand, there are some who I agree with on moral issues, who, nonetheless, bludgeon others on these same issues, and cause people to return to the kind of hard-heartedness which is going to prevent societal change. And their problem is not only in the savage, uncharitable, and undignified approach they take to their “opponents,” it’s how quickly they turn on their own, and try to find reasons to disregard each other as if they were looking to find out who should be “king of the internet hill.” With friends like these, who need enemies?

vox-nova.com/2009/05/01/in-essentials-unity-in-non-essentials-diversity-in-all-things-charity/

 

[peary]

We are saved by Grace alone. We are justified through our works.

 

[2nd_Adam]

We are saved by Grace alone. We are justified through our works.

Thank you for posting your beliefs. How do you reconcile your post with the following Bible verses? The Apostle Paul seems to be teaching that we are justified by faith and justified by his grace as a gift.

The Righteousness of God Through Faith

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Abraham Justified by Faith

What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”

Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

The Promise Realized Through Faith

For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.” He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb. No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.” But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

Rom 3 - 4

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Adam, still no response to post 69 and 71? Don’t make me send Wicket…

 

[Rocket_Man]

Rather, I think the difference is the Catholic’s using the second candle (God working in us) to back light the first candle (God’s work done for us) as if the first candle’s flame isn’t perfect enough to keep the candle glowing.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Adam, still no response to post 69 and 71? Don’t make me send Wicket…

Did you see my post 89? I know it’s a short answer, but you are asking me if your posts 69 and 71 are the doctrines that I believe. I don’t think two posts can actually describe what I believe. I think they are good, but are only partially correct. As you know, the Monergism website is quite lengthy in regards to Reformed Theology.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Did you see my post 89? I know it’s a short answer, but you are asking me if your posts 69 and 71 are the doctrines that I believe. I don’t think two posts can actually describe what I believe. I think they are good, but are only partially correct. As you know, the Monergism website is quite lengthy in regards to Reformed Theology.

Yes, it is. In post 89, you reiterated the same: some is correct, some is not. But no explanation to why and why you think the CC is insufficient to God’s grace.

 

[guanophore]

I take full responsibilty for my sin. But I tell the truth, there was no enlightenment through the baptism that I know of. Everything was foggy, I did not percieve it. Even Confirmation and Communion did not open my eyes. I did not comprehend anything spiritual. All was a system of rituals that I was placed in because my parents were Catholic. I was practicing these rituals because that’s what we did, not that they had meaning.

I had the same experience. I felt like I was spritually starving.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Yes, it is. In post 89, you reiterated the same: some is correct, some is not. But no explanation to why and why you think the CC is insufficient to God’s grace.

I don’t think I have used the words “insufficient to God’s grace” in regards to the Catholic Faith. As you know, this is really part two of the thread “Sufficiency of Christ”. Since Jesus Christ is full of grace and truth, and I believe Christ merited to grace of God on our behalf, we are discussing the same issues on this thread as the Sufficiency of Christ thread. I believe the issue of justification which caused the Protestant Reformation 500 years ago is the cause to have a lower or higher view of the sufficiency of Christ or the sufficiency of grace between our two Christian communities. I think the statement by James White is right on in regards to our essential differences.

“The Council of Trent anathematizes anyone who says you can be saved without the grace of God. The Reformers, however, never claimed Rome believed you can be saved apart from grace. That wasn’t the debate. The debate of the Reformation was never, ever about the necessity of grace, it was always about the sufficiency of grace. That remains the issue today in so many contexts.” - James White

 

[Dancelittleewok]

I don’t think I have used the words “insufficient to God’s grace” in regards to the Catholic Faith. As you know, this is really part two of the thread “Sufficiency of Christ”. Since Jesus Christ is full of grace and truth, and I believe Christ merited to grace of God on our behalf, we are discussing the same issues on this thread as the Sufficiency of Christ thread. I believe the issue of justification which caused the Protestant Reformation 500 years ago is the cause to have a lower or higher view of the sufficiency of Christ or the sufficiency of grace between our two Christian communities. I think the statement by James White is right on in regards to our essential differences.

See Begging the question, see also fallacy of many questions in the same article.

 

[guanophore]

I think you are quite confused what I was responding to. I was responding to this post below. If you are going to make a negative comment on something I posted, please try to follow the sequence of postings that led to a particular post. You are taking things way out of context of the discussions. You also continue to post something that you think I said, which I never remotely said. Is this an accident or a slander tactic? I’ve talk to Roman Catholic weeks ago about his name Roman Catholic and you might be surprised what he told me.

No, 2nd, I am not confused. I have read every post on this thread IN ORDER. I was responding to your disingenuous post because I found it offensive.

I included your entire quote in my response, and I bolded and enlarged the part that is deliberately misleading.

I doubt I would be surprised by anything Roman Catholic told you.

guanophore,

Do you agree with my statement above that Christianity is a 100% works based righteousness?

If you were to go back and read the criticism I gave you for your deliberately misleading and provocative post, you will find the answer to this question contained within it.

I wonder who is not following the context of this discussion?

 

[guanophore]

That prayer, although is very beautiful… is very confusing theologically. I believe the prayer is an intercessory prayer for the whole world for the sake of His sorrowful suffering, but why should God has mercy on you and not the whole world?

The whole world does not throw themselves on His Mercy. It is extended to all, but not all receive it.

You never answered my question, 2nd. Can a person reject God’s purpose for themselves?

 

[Dancelittleewok]

I think you are quite confused what I was responding to. I was responding to this post below. If you are going to make a negative comment on something I posted, please try to follow the sequence of postings that led to a particular post. You are taking things way out of context of the discussions. You also continue to post something that you think I said, which I never remotely said. Is this an accident or a slander tactic? I’ve talk to Roman Catholic weeks ago about his name Roman Catholic and you might be surprised what he told me.

See your own post #29 for the reason why you put Roman Catholic in the dog house. Is this an accident or slander tactic that you failed to mention your post which Guan was commenting about? Hmmm…

 

[guanophore]

Hey Guan,

Let’s stick with the theological issues and the doctrine only with each other. When we try to judge each other’s heart and motive, we play God. From my perspective, you play like you are the Magisterium and crush all Catholics who disagree with you (Tweetymom and others).

No one here has judged your heart and motives, 2nd. What we have done is observe your behavior. it seems that you are not willing to accept any feedback on how you are coming across to us, and that is between you and your Maker. My responsibility is to make it clear how your expressions affect me, and if you refuse to accept it, that is your choice.

Tweety is not Catholic, though she proclaims herself to be, her faith is not compatible with Catholic teaching. It is very important that this be distinguished, because representing oneself as Catholic, then promoting anti-catholic theology can be very damaging and causes a public scandal.

If, from your perspective, I “play like I am the Magisterium”, then all I can say is that your perspective is very skewed. No one here has tried to “crush” Tweety. What we have confronted her about persistently (and will continue to do so) is the disingenuous representation of herself.

Y

ou have posted that you have reported me to the Moderators many times, yet the Moderators have yet to say anything to me.

Actually, I didn’t say that. I did believe you would take it that way when I wrote it, though.

…apologetics as an act of worship.

It appears you have judged my worship, and found it lacking. How is this any different than me judging the content of your posts, and finding them arrogant? Worship takes place in Spirit and in Truth. It is not an act of worship to represent onself as something they are not.

I do find it interesting the Izoid and you like to side with Mormons to refute what I believe in. Do you actually have more in common with Mormonism than Protestantism?

I honestly believe that Zerinius has some valid observations to make about the Protestant Reformation.

I have never done a study to determine which departure from the Apostolic Faith actually has more commonality.

 

[guanophore]

Rather, I think the difference is the Catholic’s using the second candle (God working in us) to back light the first candle (justification) as if the first candle’s flame isn’t perfect enough to remain glowing.

This point is well taken, and I think you may be right. When one has hidden one’s light under a bushel, or the winds have whipped it to the point of going out, sometimes taking determined action in spiritual disciplines will fan to flame the light that was placed in us. The ability to engage in spiritual disciplines, though, is also a work of grace.

 

[guanophore]

Are you trying to say that because I do not believe in the Eucharist in the exact same way as you that I cannot like or receive good teaching from Pope Benedict, Martin Luther, and Augustine?

No, I just misunderstood your post.

 I think you need to....

Had you considered asking another person for what you want from them, instead of instructing them on what they need to do? This method is one of the reasons you come across as arrogant. My spiritual director has the privilege to do this with me, but you do not. However, you seem to assume that privilege…

You are often instructing others about what they need to read, etc. Then you tell them to “come back after” they have completed your instructions.

 give other Christians room to breath and to disagree agreeably, especially with other Catholics.

What makes you think that other Christians and Catholics don’t have room or breath to disagree?

It seems to me that these threads are full of the hot air of disagreement!

Unless you are one of the Bishops that makeup the Magisterium, you are just one of one billion laity in the Catholic Church.

So, why is it that you can recognize that I am a member of the laity when it suits you, but when you are offended by what I have said, then I am “playing Magesterium”?

**In Essentials, Unity, In Non-Essentials Diversity, In All Things Charity**

It is not loving to confirm others in error.

Catholics need to…

Here we go again!

Do you realize that we find this attitude quite cheeky?

… find a way to work better with each other. That’s one of the things I’ve learned through my time using the internet. There is a tendency, and it is one I have as much as many others, to disregard others once we find we do not entirely agree with each other on a specific issue.

I don’t think you will find me disregarding Tweety. On the contrary, I have not passed up even one opportunity to address my concerns with her. Indeed, it would be even more problematic to disregard her, especially when new people come along, and think what she is saying is Catholic and it is not!

 

[guanophore]

Once we prove ourselves to be doctrinally correct, it is easy to fee that all those who disagree with us must, by their nature, be morally reprehensible,

Wow. I am surprised to hear you say this. Such a thought never occurred to me. However, I guess I have to admit that I have seen you demonstrating this, especially in your attitude toward Zerinius. I guess it should not really surprise me. Maybe I just did not expect that you would admit it so openly?

 But it is quite difficult, and takes much time and energy, to really understand doctrine; we should be patient with those who have not engaged a specific doctrine as we have, who find the doctrine itself is new to them.

Well, I do agree with this. I would just add that such a person ought not to hold themselves forth as a person who understands and embraces that doctrine when in fact, they don’t.

They will have questions. We must be willing to engage them the best we can. Of course, they must also work to make sure the questions are not engaged as a way to excuse themselves from the doctrine, but to understand it better.

I have not detected that Tweety has any questions about the Catholic doctrines she has rejected. I don’t get the idea she is interested in understanding them better, either.

The worst thing to do is to label those we disagree with by some horrible name and then to try to blacklist them. Doing so will never impress outsiders; more importantly, it only serves to harden the hearts of those we criticize, to make sure no dialogue, no positive interaction, no change is possible.

It is not “horrible” to observe that one has embraced anti-catholic ideas. The whole point of the Reformation was to produce anti-Catholic ideas. Clearly, persons who reject the Catholic faith are not “blacklisted” here either. I do not even know why you are saying these things.

Tweety does not demonstrate any inclination to change whatsoever. She made it clear that she came here for fellowship. That is why she was so disappointed with us when we said things that hurt her feelings.

This is not the way a Catholic is to engage others.

This is an excellent example of what I was telling you previously about coming to a Catholic forum, and instructing Catholics about how they should behave. It is quite a mark of audacity, but I don’t think you will find it welcomed here.

Just because they do not end up agreeing with us at the end of a given discussion does not mean they are obstinate.

Sometimes it does. Tweety has been downright recalcitrant in her rejection of the Catholic faith.

But if we just cut people off once we can’t convince them they are wrong, all we do is prove ourselves insecure in our own position.

You might not realize this, 2nd, because you seem unaware of how you come across, but you are the only one here putting people in the “doghouse”.

If you are here on CAF to convince others they are wrong, then I think you have come to the wrong place. You may need to consider opening “2nd Adam’s” website, so that you can have more space for all those doghouses you are using, and to champion your “rightness” more fervently?

 Even though I do not think we have come to a common agreement, I think the openness is real, and the search for answers is real, and the worst thing would be to stop it by insult.

If that is true, then you will take note that people here are insulted by your condescending attitude.