Why all the Fuss over the Reformation 2

[PRmerger]

It would require too much speculation.

Indeed.

So it is curious that you would make some sort of claim regarding Cornelius.

Cornelius had never been presented with the Christian revelation; we are talking a period of a few years after the resurrection, at most, if even that.

Based on what do you make this claim of “a period of a few years”?

If someone has never been presented with the Christian revelation, is it still possible according to your theology for him to please God?

Unregenerate people don’t worship God truly and serve Him with good works (as Cornelius did).

So then your claim is that Cornelius was regenerated?
When did this occur?

Or is your claim that someone can be unregenerated and yet serve God?

There can be no both/and here. A true dichotomy exists.

Either a man can be unregenerated and please God…

OR

Cornelius was regenerated without ever hearing the kerygma.
How could this be, according to your theology?

And where do the Scriptures talk about a “special period” in which dispensations are permitted to be “regenerated in the same way the OT believers were”?

My guess: nowhere.

And since the Scriptures nowhere mention this special time of dispensation (of a few years), are modern day folks also permitted to be pleasing to God and “regenerated in the same way the OT believers were”?

 

[guanophore]

It is generally referred to as compatibilism.

The ultimate cause, source, etc. of our salvation is God and God alone. His will is not dependent on human cooperation.

However, what His will wills has an actual impact on His creation and doesn’t exist in abstract theological language. So when He wills the conversion of a sinner, that sinner freely, and of his own volition, repents and turns from sin and freely chooses to obey God (due to his changed heart, spirit, etc.).

Do you find this concept compatible with the Orthodoxy you are studying?

 

[guanophore]

Unregenerate people don’t worship God truly and serve Him with good works (as Cornelius did).

This is a conclusion based upon Calvin’s concept of total depravity - something quite foreign to the Apostolic deposit of faith.

 

[guanophore]

And where do the Scriptures talk about a “special period” in which dispensations are permitted to be “regenerated in the same way the OT believers were”?

My guess: nowhere.

You are just pulling the wrong Bible off the shelf, PR. Go back and get the Scofield reference bible…it is all through the footnotes.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Indeed.

So it is curious that you would make some sort of claim regarding Cornelius.

Well, we are discussing it. So if we are going to, we have to say something about him. We know enough to know that he was a God fearing Gentile. The unregenerate don’t.

Based on what do you make this claim of “a period of a few years”?

Based on the fact that the book of Acts covers the events of the apostolic ministry shortly after the resurrection.

If someone has never been presented with the Christian revelation, is it still possible according to your theology for him to please God?

Without faith it is impossible to please God.

So then your claim is that Cornelius was regenerated?
When did this occur?

The most that one could say is that it would have been at the time that he had faith in God.

Or is your claim that someone can be unregenerated and yet serve God?

No

There can be no both/and here. A true dichotomy exists.

Either a man can be unregenerated and please God…

OR

Cornelius was regenerated without ever hearing the kerygma.
How could this be, according to your theology?

Why do you think it couldn’t be?

And where do the Scriptures talk about a “special period” in which dispensations are permitted to be “regenerated in the same way the OT believers were”?

My guess: nowhere.

You don’t think anyone in the OT was regenerate?

And since the Scriptures nowhere mention this special time of dispensation (of a few years), are modern day folks also permitted to be pleasing to God and “regenerated in the same way the OT believers were”?

Strictly speaking God can regenerate anyone anytime He likes. However, now that the faith has been preached, we wouldn’t expect that regeneration happens outside of the preaching of the gospel and the sacraments.

Do you believe that just after the resurrection God expected that the entire planet would be aware of the gospel, in the same sense that we are today? I’m unsure exactly what you’re attenpting to prove here?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

This is a conclusion based upon Calvin’s concept of total depravity - something quite foreign to the Apostolic deposit of faith.

Can you give an example to the contrary?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Do you find this concept compatible with the Orthodoxy you are studying?

Not at all; but it is the Reformed view (which I’m not saying I hold to but it would be, for the purposes of the present conversation, the response).

 

[guanophore]

Can you give an example to the contrary?

Acts 17:27 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.

27God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.

28For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’

"Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone–an image made by human design and skill.

30In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

This scripture makes it clear that God has instilled in every human creature the desire to seek him. The Gk. word here for “reach out” is also translated “grope” as a person feeling around in the dark with their arms out trying not to fall over objects. Though we are unable to find Him without His grace, we are made to search, and people do so all their lives, not knowing what will fill their emptiness, and sometimes filling it with wordly things.

Why would God “command all people everywhere to repent” if it were not possible? God does not give commandments without also giving us the ability to fulfill them. Those who respond to His grace receive more grace, unto repentance.

Remember that Paul is preaching here in the Areopagus, to pagans who were always looking…

So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. 23"For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.…

 

[PRmerger]

Well, we are discussing it. So if we are going to, we have to say something about him.

Yes, I understand that. And it is duly noted that all of what you profess here regarding Cornelius is purely speculation…something the Apostles never proclaimed.

It also should be noted that speculation is a very, very weak response to a query about how someone can be pleasing to God without being regenerated, as that is a fundamental tenet of your theology, no?

A parallel would be: let’s say an atheist offers some provocative and thoughtful refutations regarding the resurrection of Christ (i.e. studies show that his bones were found in a tomb in Jerusalem).

Christians who respond with, “Well, maybe it’s because an alien left them there and it turns out that aliens have the same DNA as Christ–but this is just speculation, of course!” ought to be summarily dismissed, eh?

If someone has a trenchant and pointed question (which, if unanswered refutes a position), a strong response ought to be offered. Not speculation.

 

[PRmerger]

Based on the fact that the book of Acts covers the events of the apostolic ministry shortly after the resurrection.

This is a curious assertion, too.

It appears to be a case of special pleading.

Are we to assume, then, that you assign this same paradigm to everything in the book of Acts? That it only applies to “a period of a few years after the resurrection”?

For example, does baptism in the Holy Spirit only occur during this time frame, and no Believer today receives this gift?

When Peter says, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.

For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call" …

this applies to only those who lived in this special “period of a few years after the resurrection”?

Without faith it is impossible to please God.

Very Catholic, this!

The most that one could say is that it would have been at the time that he had faith in God.

Prior to hearing the kerygma.

 

[PRmerger]

Or is your claim that someone can be unregenerated and yet serve God?

No

There can be no both/and here. A true dichotomy exists.

Why do you think it couldn’t be?

Because of your response in red.

You have stated quite plainly that one cannot be unregenerated and serve God.

That necessarily creates a dichotomy.

And yet…you have an example of a man who was unregenerated and served God.

Your response is, “Well, there was a special time period of a few years in which people were dispensed from the requirement to be regenerate”.

I’ve never seen that “special time period” dispensation in a single page of the Bible.

Nor have I heard any of the Apostles, nor their successors talk about a dispensation being permitted for a few years.

That sounds very much like a man-made tradition to me.

In fact, it sounds like a man-made tradition which contradicts the kerygma.

What is proclaimed in the book of Acts seems to be applicable to all of us today, not just to Cornelius and the other characters mentioned in Acts.

You don’t think anyone in the OT was regenerate?

Certainly they were regenerate.

But after the Incarnation, ***everything changed. ***

Strictly speaking God can regenerate anyone anytime He likes. However, now that the faith has been preached, we wouldn’t expect that regeneration happens outside of the preaching of the gospel and the sacraments.

Yep.

Except for Cornelius. Which is a very, very big problem for those who espouse your theology.

The faith was indeed being preached at the time of Cornelius.

Do you believe that just after the resurrection God expected that the entire planet would be aware of the gospel, in the same sense that we are today?

Not at all.

I just don’t know of any inspired writing that tells us that Cornelius was excempt from your requirement to be regenerated before he could please God.

I’m unsure exactly what you’re attenpting to prove here?

That your theology is wrong in this case. That you have been duped into embracing a man-made tradition which is contrary to the paradosis, and which is not supported by a single verse in Scripture.

Specifically, the example of Cornelius proves that we are not totally depraved. That each of us has the ability to please God prior to an actual conversion and baptism in the Holy Spirit.

 

[Contarini]

Well, we are discussing it. So if we are going to, we have to say something about him. We know enough to know that he was a God fearing Gentile. The unregenerate don’t.

Based on the fact that the book of Acts covers the events of the apostolic ministry shortly after the resurrection.

Without faith it is impossible to please God.

The most that one could say is that it would have been at the time that he had faith in God.

No

Why do you think it couldn’t be?

You don’t think anyone in the OT was regenerate?

Strictly speaking God can regenerate anyone anytime He likes. However, now that the faith has been preached, we wouldn’t expect that regeneration happens outside of the preaching of the gospel and the sacraments.

Do you believe that just after the resurrection God expected that the entire planet would be aware of the gospel, in the same sense that we are today? I’m unsure exactly what you’re attenpting to prove here?

I think the point is that if a person today is in the same situation as Cornelius (faithful to the light they have received), then that person is pleasing to God. You want to declare arbitrarily that no such people exist today. But it’s not clear why the fact that a relatively short time had passed since the Resurrection is of such momentous theological weight. I don’t think it will do the work you need it to.

We all agree that no one can be pleasing to God without grace. Just to be clear on that.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Again, as long as the human person’s cooperation is affirmed, we say

Cornelius seems to be an example of the Catholic understanding of conversion–someone not predestined, not part of the chosen, but who is indeed able to please God before his actual conversion.

What do you mean “not predestined, not part of the chosen”? By either Catholic or Calvinist, or for that matter Arminian, understandings of election, Cornelius was pretty clearly among the elect (unless you think he fell away and was damned later. . . . )

I don’t think you understand what Calvinists mean by “predestined” or what Catholics have traditionally meant by it.

A person who is elect is elect from all eternity, before they are regenerate.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

What do you mean “not predestined, not part of the chosen”? By either Catholic or Calvinist, or for that matter Arminian, understandings of election, Cornelius was pretty clearly among the elect (unless you think he fell away and was damned later. . . . )

I don’t think you understand what Calvinists mean by “predestined” or what Catholics have traditionally meant by it.

A person who is elect is elect from all eternity, before they are regenerate.

Edwin

Hey! Why did you delete your original response to Gaelic Bard!

(You are, of course, under no obligation to explain yourself…I’m just curious…but, whatevs…)

All I meant by “not predestined, not part of the chosen” is: unregenerate.

To your accusation that I don’t understand what Calvinists mean by “predestined”, that’s entirely possible.

To your accusation that I don’t understand what what Catholics have traditionally meant by it:



I am quite familiar with my Church’s understanding of predestination, Edwin.

 

[Contarini]

Hey! Why did you delete your original response to Gaelic Bard!

(You are, of course, under no obligation to explain yourself…I’m just curious…but, whatevs…)

All I meant by “not predestined, not part of the chosen” is: unregenerate.

To your accusation that I don’t understand what Calvinists mean by “predestined”, that’s entirely possible.

To your accusation that I don’t understand what what Catholics have traditionally meant by it:

http://media.tumblr.com/b2a9386c8985ff0a7c4e24e223d8d874/tumblr_inline_n03mb1mr4Y1r79k32.gif

I am quite familiar with my Church’s understanding of predestination, Edwin.

I deleted the original response because I realized that the point at issue was not what I thought it was. I should write a second response focusing on the prevenient grace issue, which is fundamentally where Catholics (and Wesleyans) disagree with Calvinists regarding Cornelius. I’m used to arguing with conservative Calvinists about whether Cornelius’ example supports the view that people who have not heard the Gospel may still be pleasing to God, but then I saw that that wasn’t really the point you guys were disputing. Also, your confusion of election and regeneration wasn’t something I wanted to be defending:shrug:

And no, if you think that a person who will eventually be saved is not predestined until he/she is regenerate, then you don’t understand how Catholic theologians have traditionally used the terminology. You don’t understand how Augustine or Aquinas or Molina used it, for instance.

Edwin

 

[Tomyris]

Specifically, the example of Cornelius proves that we are not totally depraved. That each of us has the ability to please God prior to an actual conversion and baptism in the Holy Spirit.

I am not sure how you are using “totally depraved”. Nor how your second statement here is not Pelagian. Without faith it is impossible to please God. Faith comes by hearing. Cornelius lived where he could have heard a LOT, did he not? God granted him grace in his prayers and led him to Himself. There is no conflict here with total depravity.

Do you really believe people can please God without grace? Are you denying prevenient grace? It sounds like you are.

 

[PRmerger]

I deleted the original response because I realized that the point at issue was not what I thought it was.

Okey dokey.

I should write a second response focusing on the prevenient grace issue, which is fundamentally where Catholics (and Wesleyans) disagree with Calvinists regarding Cornelius. I’m used to arguing with conservative Calvinists about whether Cornelius’ example supports the view that people who have not heard the Gospel may still be pleasing to God, but then I saw that that wasn’t really the point you guys were disputing

That is exactly the point I am defending.

Also, your confusion of election and regeneration wasn’t something I wanted to be defending:shrug:

And no, if you think that a person who will eventually be saved is not predestined until he/she is regenerate, then you don’t understand how Catholic theologians have traditionally used the terminology. You don’t understand how Augustine or Aquinas or Molina used it, for instance.

Really.

You gleaned all of that from my 7 words?

“not predestined, not part of the chosen”

 

[PRmerger]

I am not sure how you are using “totally depraved”.

Is this not a correct ascription of TD: “the mind of man is so entirely alienated from the righteousness of God that he cannot conceive, desire, or design anything but what is weak, distorted, foul, impure or iniquitous, that his heart is so thoroughly environed by sin that it can breathe out nothing but corruption and rottenness; that if some men occasionally make a show of goodness their mind is ever interwoven with hypocrisy and deceit, their soul inwardly bound with the fetters of wickedness.”

Clearly, Cornelius contradicts.

Does not TD profess that all the acts of the human person who has not yet been baptized, who has not yet been cleansed of his original sin, are evil and corrupt and sinful?

Nor how your second statement here is not Pelagian.

Well, that’s because we Catholics don’t view “pleasing to God” as synonymous with “therefore we are saved when we please God.”

Without faith it is impossible to please God. Faith comes by hearing

Yes. Very Catholic, this!

Cornelius lived where he could have heard a LOT, did he not? God granted him grace in his prayers and led him to Himself. There is no conflict here with total depravity

So when did Cornelius become regenerate?

Before he heard the kerygma? Before he was baptized?

Or are you saying that you know he heard the kerygma, had faith, repented all before he met Peter?

Do you really believe people can please God without grace? Are you denying prevenient grace? It sounds like you are.

Catholicism professes that the human person is absolutely capable of doing morally good things (which would, of course, please God), without grace.

Despite Original Sin which weakened and harmed our human nature, human nature is still good in itself and** we can do actions that are morally good, but not deserving of eternal reward, without grace.**

From the Council of Trent: “although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.”

As far as my alleged denial of prevenient grace:



It is because of God’s free gift of prevenient grace to Cornelius that he was indeed able to do works which were pleasing to God.

 

[Tomyris]

Is this not a correct ascription of TD: “the mind of man is so entirely alienated from the righteousness of God that he cannot conceive, desire, or design anything but what is weak, distorted, foul, impure or iniquitous, that his heart is so thoroughly environed by sin that it can breathe out nothing but corruption and rottenness; that if some men occasionally make a show of goodness their mind is ever interwoven with hypocrisy and deceit, their soul inwardly bound with the fetters of wickedness.”

I think that is a Calvin quote. He was a lot of fun.

Just randomly throwing out some thoughts here: there is such a thing as common grace, given to all: we are not so bad as we could be, and God sends rain both on the just and the unjust. And we never wholly lose the image of God - unbelievers are capable of acts of beauty and scientific invention and insight, etc. But in everything that someone does there is enough sin that on its own it can never merit God’s approval - unless He chooses to credit it.

If the image of God was so completely lost that man was completely sinful, then there was no way Christ could become man, because of essence man was sin. I disagree. We are bent and broken and twisted but we remain human.
PR:

Clearly, Cornelius contradicts.

Nope.

Does not TD profess that all the acts of the human person who has not yet been baptized, who has not yet been cleansed of his original sin, are evil and corrupt and sinful?

Somehow you are attempting to mix Reformed theology and baptismal regeneration in the same sentence. My eyes are crossed.

Nor how your second statement here is not Pelagian.

PR:

Well, that’s because we Catholics don’t view “pleasing to God” as synonymous with “therefore we are saved when we please God.”

That needs some parsing, which I don’t have time for now.
PR:

So when did Cornelius become regenerate?

Before he heard the kerygma? Before he was baptized?

Or are you saying that you know he heard the kerygma, had faith, repented all before he met Peter?

I don’t know off hand. But he believed and acted in faith, so we point to him as an example of forensic justification. So there.
PR:

Catholicism professes that the human person is absolutely capable of doing morally good things (which would, of course, please God), without grace.

Despite Original Sin which weakened and harmed our human nature, human nature is still good in itself and** we can do actions that are morally good, but not deserving of eternal reward, without grace.**

From the Council of Trent: “although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.”

And we maintain that any act, however morally good it may be, is still tainted by sin if done by natural man. Lemonade that has 1/100000 certain poisons is still lethal.
PR:

As far as my alleged denial of prevenient grace:

…

It is because of God’s free gift of prevenient grace to Cornelius that he was indeed able to do works which were pleasing to God.

 

[guanophore]

Warm greetings Tomi, I was wondering where you were!

I am not sure how you are using “totally depraved”.

I am sure someone will correct me if I have missed the mark here. I think that total depravity means that due to the fall, man is unable of himself to choose God, respond to grace, or believe in the Gospel and so be saved. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, since he is a slave to sin and is in the power of his evil nature. He will not, and cannot - choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit’s assistance to bring a sinner to Christ - it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God’s gift of salvation - it is God’s gift to the sinner, not the sinner’s gift to God.

Thus a person who comes to faith only does so because God has divinely regenerated him. I think, applied to Cornelius, this would mean that he was regenerated some time ago (before the Acts account{|) which is what caused him to become a God fearing Gentile. (non-Jewish believer). So spiritually he is like all those others in the OT who were regenerated (came to faith).

Nor how your second statement here is not Pelagian. Without faith it is impossible to please God. Faith comes by hearing. Cornelius lived where he could have heard a LOT, did he not?

Yes. Clearly he responded to Gods grace and call previously, or he would not have been offering prayers and sacrifices to God.

Catholics don’t have a conflict with the concept that we are made unable through the fall to unite with God in our natural state. We need to be given that ability from Him. Does it seem Pelagian to say that we have an obligation to respond to grace? This would be the part where we diverge from Reformed theology. The Apostles taught that everyone must make a choice to place their fatih in Christ, ,where Calvin said that we are incapable of doing so until we are born again from above by Spirit. So for Calvin, God chooses for Himself who He wishes to regenerate and does so, enabling them to have faith and be converted.

God granted him grace in his prayers and led him to Himself. There is no conflict here with total depravity.

I just learned today that the word used there, anamnesis, is the same word used to describe the Passover and the Eucharist. It describes and enacted ritual that brings God’s attention to what we are doing, and vice versa.

Do you really believe people can please God without grace?

No. even the actions people take before they are regenerated are rooted in grace. The difference is that Catholics believe we are created with a desire to please God, and this is not nullified by the Fall.