 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
youngone88
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| First Name: | Stephen | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lutheran-Evangelical-soon to be Catholic? (still seeking) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 4th, 2008 07:57 am |
|
Has anyone come across James Patrick Holding's argument (I don't know if it originated with him, but he's the one I've seen use it. that, because baptism and good works are intricately connected to faith by the "Semitic Totality Concept" (referring to Jewish ideas of "unitive notion of the personality") that Biblical statements about works and sacraments can be understood in the Protestant view (signifying, vindicating, etc...but never actually causing salvation)?
I'm not really doing the view justice...if anyone wants to see his argument it is pretty easy to find on google searching with "semitic totality baptism".
Anyway, I don't find his conclusions particularly convincing in light of the scriptural and historical evidence, but I was just curious of what you guys made of this argument?
Last edited on Wed Jun 4th, 2008 08:00 am by youngone88
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 2445 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 6th, 2008 12:20 am |
|
Hi Stephen,
I know J.P. a bit and he does good general Christian apologetics work. I found the paper you reference.
This is both an interesting and clever argument. At least it is some attempt to grapple with (i.e., oppose) what I think is pretty compelling NT evidence for baptismal regeneration. I don't think he succeeds, but it is a serious argument, with a lot of effort put into it, and I always appreciate that even when I disagree with the conclusion.
I did a lengthy treatment of the Bible and baptismal regeneration. Here is one argument that I think trumps his:
1 Peter 3:19-21: . . . he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were being saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, The meaning is much more clear in context. This is a typical Hebraic parallelism or what is called "types and shadows"; very common in Scripture. In the Old Testament, when "salvation" was mentioned, it usually referred to winning a battle, being saved from an enemy, having one's life or town saved, etc. In other words, "physical salvation." This became a metaphor for spiritual salvation later on, in New Testament thought (or the parallel between physical death and spiritual death; losing one's life and losing one's soul). So here, Peter makes the same sort of analogy. The eight persons in Noah's ark were saved through water (i.e., primarily saved from drowning). The water of the flood symbolized baptism that now saves you also.
Baptism saves us spiritually, not physically. In no way can water baptism be thought to save us physically, so in order to maintain the symbolism Peter is referring to, we must conclude that it saves us spiritually (baptismal regeneration). The "symbolism" referred to is the parallel between the Flood and water baptism. It is not referring to a symbolic baptism. This is proven by the clause "this water," which refers back to the preceding clause, "saved through water" (referring to the Flood and Noah's ark). As Noah and his family were saved through water, so Christians are saved by baptism, not merely "symbolically saved," or "doing a symbolic ritual after being saved," which makes no sense of the passage and twists the parallelism itself.
Likewise, we see a similar analogy when Jesus talks about the "sign of Jonah" (Matthew 12:38-41). He compares Jonah's being swallowed by the fish with His Resurrection, after being "in the heart of the earth" (i.e., as Jonah appeared when it would be thought that he was dead, so would Jesus). This is another comparison of a physical "salvation" or near-miracle, with an event of great spiritual import. Jesus wasn't saved like we are but He conquered death, just like we can, in Him. We can conquer spiritual death, by means of Jesus' redemption on the cross. So it is another instance of comparing an Old Testament physical event with a New Testament occurrence of spiritual significance. Peter ties in the Resurrection of Jesus with water baptism, by showing that the former provides the power for the latter. St. Paul does the same thing:
Romans 6:3-4 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (cf. Romans 8:11, 1 Cor 15:20-23, Col 2:11-13) I may try to refute some of his arguments in the future. It could be a fun challenge. if I do, I'll post it here.
In Him,
Dave
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2100+ papers & web pages (free) & 17 apologetic books (4 sale: 15 E-Books: $25)
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
NorthStar
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 105 |
| First Name: | Chuck | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 16th, 2008 04:10 pm |
|
Well I'm not an apologist, but have done my fair share of debating these issues over the years, and frankly it's just not for me. However I felt it necessary to post something about this....because he's trying to use "Jewish/Hebraic" arguments to defend Protestant theology, which shows his total lack of understanding of Judaism either in the 1st century, or today.
he wrote:
Under the Semitic Totality paradigm, thoughts that result in no action are vain. When Paul encourages believers to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling," (Phil. 2:12) he is not telling us that we must do our part to be saved. We already possess that righteousness; what is needed is for us to come to terms with this and live consistently with it.
I've actually heard this argument before as a Protestant, though granted he does use creative language and new phrasings to make it sound somewhat different, and more "Semitic", but unsuccessfully I think. (Why does the Syriac Church (Orthodox or Eastern Catholic) not accept his view when you can't get anymore semitic that people still using Aramaic in their Liturgy and conversation?)
This to me simply doesn't make any sense what he's saying. He says we don't have to do out part to be saved, and then he says we have to DO what is needed for us to live consistently with out salvation? Huh? What does he mean by DO then? The problem is he doesn't have a Jewish view of faith and works at all. He actually comes very close to both the Church's and the traditional Jewish view of synergy, where faith and works go together, but he doesn't even see that he's almost there. He is actually the one who is seperating faith from works, where as the Church and even Jews simply don't seperate the two.
for reference from the JewFAQ website: What is Halakhah?
Judaism is not just a set of beliefs about G-d, man and the
universe. Judaism is a comprehensive way of life, filled with
rules and practices that affect every aspect of life: what you
do when you wake up in the morning, what you can and
cannot eat, what you can and cannot wear, how to groom
yourself, how to conduct business, who you can marry, how
to observe the holidays and Shabbat, and perhaps most important, how to treat G-d, other people, and animals. This set of rules and practices is known as halakhah.
The word "halakhah" is usually translated as "Jewish Law," although a more literal translation might be "the path that one walks."
The word is derived from the Hebrew root Heh-Lamed-Kaf, meaning to go, to walk or to travel.
Some non-Jews and non-observant Jews criticize this legalistic aspect of traditional Judaism, saying that it reduces the religion to a set of rituals devoid of spirituality. While there are certainly some Jews who observe halakhah in this way, that is not the intention of halakhah, and it is not even the correct way to
observe halakhah.
On the contrary, when properly observed, halakhah increases the spirituality in a person's life, because it turns the most trivial, mundane acts, such as eating and getting dressed, into acts of religious significance.
While we don't have the exact same understanding that Judaism has, you certainly see the similarities much more between historic Christian teaching and Judaism, than between Protestantism and Judaism. So if he is trying to say Protestantism is more semitic than traditional Christianity he's sadly mistaken. Notice for Judaism they use the term, "the path one walks"....well walking means WE have to do something.
The biggest issue for me is when in that article he writes: We already possess that righteousness; what is needed is for us to come to terms with this and live consistently with it.
In one sense, yes, we DO possess it because we are in Christ and Christ is in us. We have the Holy Spirit guiding us, and so yes, we have it, but living consistently does NOT just come automatically, no matter what any protestant says. This is where I struggled greatly as a Protestant, I was told "well you're saved so you'll automatically be a good person"....really? Well I thought of myself as a horrible sinner, I mean, like, the worst slime that ever crawled out from under a pile poo because I couldn't "automatically" be a good Christian. I had to WORK at it, but I was always told that if you're "truly saved" you'll keep God's commandments. I went through periods of despair and darkness not to be believed because I was taught that this horrible cycle of torment:
get saved and you don't need to work anymore
once saved you're a "Christian" and needn't work
If you're not living a Christian life then you're not truly saved (because I was an eternal security guy)
so I would get "saved" all over again....I must have been saved about 600 times. That's why i'm posting on this old thread because I think this line of thinking is dangerous for some people, because if you take what he says to it's logical conclusion that all we have to do is "come to terms" with our salvation and then live it, you end up where I was for years.
He makes it sound so easy, to "live consistently" with the Gospel. And yet if it is really that easy, why is there corruption in the Protestant world? if they are right, then everyone should be a saint, but they aren't. So the theology might make sense, but it doesn't really work that way. Even if all we have to do is "tap into" what we already have (and I see nothing really wrong with thinking that) it can be aweful hard to "tap into" it and to LIVE it.
A truly Semitic outlook is not to seperate faith and works, but that faith IS works. And works IS faith. That is exactly what St. James wrote about in his epistle, they are the same thing. You cannot have one without the other. You cannot say "i have faith" but not work....because if you don't work then you don't have faith at all, only a mental ascension to a belief, which is not faith.
I think that is what the author is trying to get it, but he doesn't see that to DO something, ANYTHING in life can be hard, a struggle and well...WORK. Anyone who struggles with lust or anger (and I do with both) knows it is WORK...and the work we put into the struggle is because we have faith. 'sigh'
I just wish more people could see this. I only posted because I think what the article says can be dangerous (as it was for me) and thought I might have something offer.
If not, I apologize for the long ramble! 
Edited to fix formatting
Last edited on Sat Aug 16th, 2008 08:07 pm by
|
|
|
NorthStar
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 105 |
| First Name: | Chuck | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 16th, 2008 04:15 pm |
|
Oh yeah, I didn't even care to respond to his version of Scriptures because he's picking and choosing which manuscripts he wants to use as proofs, one of them ironically is preserved in the Vatican...LOL!
|
|
|
youngone88
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| First Name: | Stephen | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lutheran-Evangelical-soon to be Catholic? (still seeking) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 16th, 2008 06:19 pm |
|
I know how you felt. When I was a Calvinist I had many times where I despaired that I must not be saved in the first place. It sometimes reached the point where I would just figure that it was God's will for me to go to hell and I had to accept it.
I think one major problem with some Protestant theology is that it sometimes works in the abstract world, but falls apart or is absolutely inapplicable for people in real world.
Also.. thanks for the detailed response to the Semitic Totality Concept. I agree that, if the concept were taken to its logical conclusion...you could not logically separate faith and works in your theory of salvation. It would be nice if I knew any scholarly works on this aspect of Hebrew thought, but from what I see it seems to support the Catholic position rather than the Protestant one...
Last edited on Sat Aug 16th, 2008 10:51 pm by youngone88
|
|
|
NorthStar
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 105 |
| First Name: | Chuck | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 21st, 2008 03:47 pm |
|
youngone88 wrote
Also.. thanks for the detailed response to the Semitic Totality Concept. I agree that, if the concept were taken to its logical conclusion...you could not logically separate faith and works in your theory of salvation. It would be nice if I knew any scholarly works on this aspect of Hebrew thought, but from what I see it seems to support the Catholic position rather than the Protestant one...
There is a website I visited once that showed just how closely related Christianity is to Judaism, with a lot of writings from the fathers etc...I think it was ran by a Syriac Christian scholar, not sure. I'll see if I can find it.
My first priest actually studied under an Ultra Orthodox Rabbi for 14 years, and so knew as much about Judaism as he did Christianity. (he was also half Jewish/half Greek) He has since passed away, (at only 48) but he often talked about the similarities between Apostolic Christianity and Judaism...and just how wrong the Protestants actually have it. But he never wrote anything on the subject unfortunately.
Anyways, maybe I can find the website....
|
|
|
ChildofGod
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 214 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian in the Wilderness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 23rd, 2008 04:23 am |
|
NorthStar wrote: Well I'm not an apologist, but have done my fair share of debating these issues over the years, and frankly it's just not for me. I know what you mean, NorthStar. I've tried to reason from the Holy Scriptures with Protestants on another forum about the flaws in the concept of Imputed Righteousness, Justification and the Finished work of Christ as the Reformed understand it. Those steeped in the Reformed Protestant tradition seem to think that if a Christian, whether Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox, does not believe in these teachings from their point of view, their salvation is at risk and they are deceived. Under the Semitic Totality paradigm, thoughts that result in no action are vain. When Paul encourages believers to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling," (Phil. 2:12) he is not telling us that we must do our part to be saved. We already possess that righteousness; what is needed is for us to come to terms with this and live consistently with it. The last sentence which I have bolded and underlined almost seems like a contradiction in terms. But here is where the Reformed Protestant view on Imputed Righteousness, Justification and the Finished work of Christ come into play. This is how it goes. When the reprobate sinner repents of his sins and receives Jesus Christ as his/her Lord and Savior, he/she is made perfect in God's sight. Since Christ took upon Himself our sins, all the sinner needs to do is believe in his/her heart that Christ took upon Him their sins, and they are then made justified forever in the sight of God. This is the Finished work of Christ on the cross, and nothing can be added to it or taken away from it. So, from the day that confession in Christ's shed blood on Calvary is made, when God looks upon the believer, He only sees the righteousness of Christ, not the sins of the believer. "Coming to terms with this" merely means acknowledging, or more specifically, making a mental assent to this fact. So, when the Reformed Christian sins after his/her acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior, they must agree with this concept of Imputed Righteousness and Justification and believe that their sins cannot and never will separate them from God. To doubt this is to question Christ's finished work on the cross and to question saving faith. Now practically speaking, if we lived our lives this way in any relationship on this earth, we would not have close friends, and our family would not want to be around us. Imagine the spouse who would commit adultery and not acknowledge how such a sin has broken the marriage vows and trust within that relationship. And imagine if the unfaithful spouse had the attitude that nothing he/she does could/would change the status of that marriage. And imagine further if that spouse saw no need to repent of their unfaithfulness and no need to proove by their actions that they are truly sorry. Let ii suffice to say that marriage wouldn't last long. So how is it that Christians think they can sin against the Lord God, who is the creator of the universe, and there is nothing they need to "do" except acknowledge that no matter how much they sin, He will still love them and accept them and He expects nothing from them whatsoever - no penance, no righting the wrong, no act of contrition, nothing, because anything he/she would do to repair the broken relationship is "works." ?????
I have more to say about this topic, but it's late and my thinking processes are not at their best right now. I would love to discuss this topic at length with those of you who came out of this tradition and those of you who understand it. I am coming to believe that this is one of the most dangerous teachings within the Reformed tradition, because it makes sin to be of little significance. After all, if all your sins have been forgiven - Past - Present - and Future, and nothing can change that - then where is the fear of God within such a teaching? Can one fear to sin because it displeases a Holy and Righteous God if one thinks that no sin can separate them from God? Can't this kind of belief cause one to treat God as a doormat?
Please look under the heading of Justification and read my thread on Imputed Righteousness. This attitude of "its all been done for you by Christ on Calvary" and there's nothing expected from the Christian, nothing that he can or should do to grow in righteousness and holiness, makes our lives as believers in Christ, our witness to the world as lights shining in the darkness of no consequence. If I think nothing is required of me to continue in the grace of God, I will live haphazardly and not care a hoot about living a godly, faithful life unto Christ my Lord.
Darlene
|
|
|
setapart
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 13th, 2007 |
| Location: | Austin, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 269 |
| First Name: | Bill | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Born Catholic, Non-Denominational Charismatic, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 23rd, 2008 02:24 pm |
|
ChildofGod wrote:
If I think nothing is required of me to continue in the grace of God, I will live
haphazardly and not care a hoot about living a godly, faithful life unto Christ my Lord.
One set of verses that stick out to me:
12 Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation--but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it.
13 For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,
Romans 8:12-13 (NIV)
Blessings,
Bill
____________________
But for you who fear my name, the Sun of Righteousness will rise with healing in his wings. And you will go free, leaping with joy like calves let out to pasture. Mal 4:2
|
|
|
NorthStar
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 105 |
| First Name: | Chuck | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 23rd, 2008 07:57 pm |
|
ChildofGod wrote: NorthStar wrote: Well I'm not an apologist, but have done my fair share of debating these issues over the years, and frankly it's just not for me. I know what you mean, NorthStar. I've tried to reason from the Holy Scriptures with Protestants on another forum about the flaws in the concept of Imputed Righteousness, Justification and the Finished work of Christ as the Reformed understand it. Those steeped in the Reformed Protestant tradition seem to think that if a Christian, whether Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox, does not believe in these teachings from their point of view, their salvation is at risk and they are deceived. Under the Semitic Totality paradigm, thoughts that result in no action are vain. When Paul encourages believers to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling," (Phil. 2:12) he is not telling us that we must do our part to be saved. We already possess that righteousness; what is needed is for us to come to terms with this and live consistently with it. The last sentence which I have bolded and underlined almost seems like a contradiction in terms. But here is where the Reformed Protestant view on Imputed Righteousness, Justification and the Finished work of Christ come into play. This is how it goes. When the reprobate sinner repents of his sins and receives Jesus Christ as his/her Lord and Savior, he/she is made perfect in God's sight. Since Christ took upon Himself our sins, all the sinner needs to do is believe in his/her heart that Christ took upon Him their sins, and they are then made justified forever in the sight of God. This is the Finished work of Christ on the cross, and nothing can be added to it or taken away from it. So, from the day that confession in Christ's shed blood on Calvary is made, when God looks upon the believer, He only sees the righteousness of Christ, not the sins of the believer. "Coming to terms with this" merely means acknowledging, or more specifically, making a mental assent to this fact. So, when the Reformed Christian sins after his/her acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior, they must agree with this concept of Imputed Righteousness and Justification and believe that their sins cannot and never will separate them from God. To doubt this is to question Christ's finished work on the cross and to question saving faith. Now practically speaking, if we lived our lives this way in any relationship on this earth, we would not have close friends, and our family would not want to be around us. Imagine the spouse who would commit adultery and not acknowledge how such a sin has broken the marriage vows and trust within that relationship. And imagine if the unfaithful spouse had the attitude that nothing he/she does could/would change the status of that marriage. And imagine further if that spouse saw no need to repent of their unfaithfulness and no need to proove by their actions that they are truly sorry. Let ii suffice to say that marriage wouldn't last long. So how is it that Christians think they can sin against the Lord God, who is the creator of the universe, and there is nothing they need to "do" except acknowledge that no matter how much they sin, He will still love them and accept them and He expects nothing from them whatsoever - no penance, no righting the wrong, no act of contrition, nothing, because anything he/she would do to repair the broken relationship is "works." ?????
I have more to say about this topic, but it's late and my thinking processes are not at their best right now. I would love to discuss this topic at length with those of you who came out of this tradition and those of you who understand it. I am coming to believe that this is one of the most dangerous teachings within the Reformed tradition, because it makes sin to be of little significance. After all, if all your sins have been forgiven - Past - Present - and Future, and nothing can change that - then where is the fear of God within such a teaching? Can one fear to sin because it displeases a Holy and Righteous God if one thinks that no sin can separate them from God? Can't this kind of belief cause one to treat God as a doormat?
Please look under the heading of Justification and read my thread on Imputed Righteousness. This attitude of "its all been done for you by Christ on Calvary" and there's nothing expected from the Christian, nothing that he can or should do to grow in righteousness and holiness, makes our lives as believers in Christ, our witness to the world as lights shining in the darkness of no consequence. If I think nothing is required of me to continue in the grace of God, I will live haphazardly and not care a hoot about living a godly, faithful life unto Christ my Lord.
Darlene
Hi Darlene! I'd like to respond, but wow....this is a deep post...LOL! Give me a bit of time to think on this, and I'll try to reply as soon as I can. All I can say right now is that while certain bible passages can lead to the Reformed theology, other ones totally contradict it, for example the sermon on the mount. However I need to take some time and really give a decent answer....as opposed to just proof texting.
Chuck
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 2445 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 11:17 pm |
|
Hi Darlene,
I have more to say about this topic, but it's late and my thinking processes are not at their best right now. I would love to discuss this topic at length with those of you who came out of this tradition and those of you who understand it. I am coming to believe that this is one of the most dangerous teachings within the Reformed tradition, because it makes sin to be of little significance. After all, if all your sins have been forgiven - Past - Present - and Future, and nothing can change that - then where is the fear of God within such a teaching? Can one fear to sin because it displeases a Holy and Righteous God if one thinks that no sin can separate them from God? Can't this kind of belief cause one to treat God as a doormat?
Please look under the heading of Justification and read my thread on Imputed Righteousness. This attitude of "its all been done for you by Christ on Calvary" and there's nothing expected from the Christian, nothing that he can or should do to grow in righteousness and holiness, makes our lives as believers in Christ, our witness to the world as lights shining in the darkness of no consequence. If I think nothing is required of me to continue in the grace of God, I will live haphazardly and not care a hoot about living a godly, faithful life unto Christ my Lord.
I understand that justification has been formally separated from sanctification in Reformed and general Protestant teaching, and this leads to deleterious effects, and is often distorted and abused in Protestant circles. I've written a lot about this in my apologetics.
I'm also very concerned, however, that we are fair to our Protestant brethren. The most learned scholars and founders of Protestantism do not and did not teach "cheap grace" (as Bonhoeffer calls it). We mustn't judge schools of thought by the worst proponents of them, but by the best.
I myself have documented (even now in a book) how Martin Luther strongly urged the practice of good works as a proof of genuine faith:
Martin Luther on Sanctification and the Absolute Necessity of Good Works as the Proof of Authentic Faith
John Calvin teaches the same. For example:
Although we have already in some measure shown how faith possesses Christ, and gives us the enjoyment of his benefits, the subject would still be obscure were we not to add an exposition of the effects resulting from it. The sum of the Gospel is, not without good reason, made to consist in repentance and forgiveness of sins; and, therefore, where these two heads are omitted, any discussion concerning faith will be meager and defective, and indeed almost useless. Now, since Christ confers upon us, and we obtain by faith, both free reconciliation and newness of life, reason and order require that I should here begin to treat of both. The shortest transition, however, will be from faith to repentance; for repentance being properly understood it will better appear how a man is justified freely by faith alone, and yet that holiness of life, real holiness, as it is called, is inseparable from the free imputation of righteousness. That repentance not only always follows faith, but is produced by it, ought to be without controversy (see Calvin in Joann. 1:13). For since pardon and forgiveness are offered by the preaching of the Gospel, in order that the sinner, delivered from the tyranny of Satan, the yoke of sin, and the miserable bondage of iniquity, may pass into the kingdom of God, it is certain that no man can embrace the grace of the Gospel without retaking himself from the errors of his former life into the right path, and making it his whole study to practice repentance. Those who think that repentance precedes faith instead of flowing from, or being produced by it, as the fruit by the tree, have never understood its nature, and are moved to adopt that view on very insufficient grounds.
(Institutes of the Christian Religion, III, 3, 1; complete; my emphases)
For if we have true fellowship in his death, our old man is crucified by his power, and the body of sin becomes dead, so that the corruption of our original nature is never again in full vigor (Rom. 6:5, 6). If we are partakers in his resurrection, we are raised up by means of it to newness of life, which conforms us to the righteousness of God. . . . This renewal, indeed, is not accomplished in a moment, a day, or a year, but by uninterrupted, sometimes even by slow progress God abolishes the remains of carnal corruption in his elect, cleanses them from pollution, and consecrates them as his temples, restoring all their inclinations to real purity, so that during their whole lives they may practice repentance, and know that death is the only termination to this warfare. . . . after Paul, I make the image of God to consist in righteousness and true holiness; as if in every definition it were not necessary to take the thing defined in its integrity and perfection. It is not denied that there is room for improvement; but what I maintain is, that the nearer any one approaches in resemblance to God, the more does the image of God appear in him.
(Inst., III, 3, 9; my emphases)
We can now understand what are the fruits of repentance—viz. offices of piety towards God, and love towards men, general holiness and purity of life. In short, the more a man studies to conform his life to the standard of the divine law, the surer signs he gives of his repentance. Accordingly, the Spirit, in exhorting us to repentance, brings before us at one time each separate precept of the law; at another the duties of the second table; although there are also passages in which, after condemning impurity in its fountain in the heart, he afterwards descends to external marks, by which repentance is proved to be sincere. A portraiture of this I will shortly set before the eye of the reader when I come to describe the Christian life (infra, chapter 6) I will not here collect the passages from the prophets in which they deride the frivolous observances of those who labour to appease God with ceremonies, and show that they are mere mockery; or those in which they show that outward integrity of conduct is not the chief part of repentance, seeing that God looks at the heart. Any one moderately versant in Scripture will understand by himself, without being reminded by others, that when he has to do with God, nothing is gained without beginning with the internal affections of the heart. There is a passage of Joel which will avail not a little for the understanding of others: “Rend your heart, and not your garments,” (Joel 2:13). Both are also briefly expressed by James in these words: “Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double-minded,” (James 4:8). Here, indeed, the accessory is set down first; but the source and principle is afterwards pointed out—viz. that hidden defilements must be wiped away, and an altar erected to God in the very heart. There are, moreover, certain external exercises which we employ in private as remedies to humble us and tame our flesh, and in public, to testify our repentance. These have their origin in that revenge of which Paul speaks (2 Cor. 7:2), for when the mind is distressed, it naturally expresses itself in sackcloth, groans, and tears, shuns ornament and every kind of show, and abandons all delights. Then he who feels how great an evil the rebellion of the flesh is, tries every means of curbing it. Besides, he who considers aright how grievous a thing it is to have offended the justice of God, cannot rest until, in his humility, he have given glory to God. Such exercises are often mentioned by ancient writers when they speak of the fruits of repentance.
(Inst., III, 3, 16; my emphases)
Moreover if it is true, and nothing can be more certain, than that a complete summary of the Gospel is included under these two heads—viz. repentance and the remission of sins, do we not see that the Lord justifies his people freely, and at the same time renews them to true holiness by the sanctification of his Spirit? John, the messenger sent before the face of Christ to prepare his ways, proclaimed, “repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” (Mt. 11:10; 3:2). By inviting them to repentance, he urged them to acknowledge that they were sinners, and in all respects condemned before God, that thus they might be induced earnestly to seek the mortification of the flesh, and a new birth in the Spirit.
(Inst., III, 3, 19; my emphases)
When the saints repeatedly confirm and console themselves with the remembrance of their innocence and integrity, and sometimes even abstain not from proclaiming them, it is done in two ways: either because by comparing their good cause with the bad cause of the ungodly, they thence feel secure of victory, not so much from commendation of their own righteousness, as from the just and merited condemnation of their adversaries; or because, reviewing themselves before God, even without any comparison with others the purity of their conscience gives them some comfort and security. The former reason will afterwards be considered (chap. 17, sec. 14, and chap. 20, sec. 10); let us now briefly show, in regard to the latter, how it accords with what we have above said, that we can have no confidence in works before the bar of God, that we cannot glory in any opinion of their worth. The accordance lies here, that when the point considered is the constitution and foundation of salvation, believers, without paying any respect to works, direct their eyes to the goodness of God alone. Nor do they turn to it only in the first instance, as to the commencement of blessedness, but rest in it as the completion. Conscience being thus founded, built up, and established is farther established by the consideration of works, inasmuch as they are proofs of God dwelling and reigning in us. Since, then, this confidence in works has no place unless you have previously fixed your whole confidence on the mercy of God, it should not seem contrary to that on which it depends. Wherefore, when we exclude confidence in works, we merely mean, that the Christian mind must not turn back to the merit of works as an aid to salvation, but must dwell entirely on the free promise of justification. But we forbid no believer to confirm and support this faith by the signs of the divine favor towards him. For if when we call to mind the gifts which God has bestowed upon us, they are like rays of the divine countenance, by which we are enabled to behold the highest light of his goodness; much more is this the case with the gift of good works, which shows that we have received the Spirit of adoption.
(Inst., III, 14, 18; complete; my emphases)
When believers therefore feel their faith strengthened by a consciousness of integrity, and entertain sentiments of exultation, it is just because the fruits of their calling convince them that the Lord has admitted them to a place among his children. Accordingly, when Solomon says, “In the fear of the Lord is strong confidence,” (Prov. 14:26), and when the saints sometimes beseech the Lord to hear them, because they walked before his face in simplicity and integrity (Gen. 24:10; 2 Kings 20:3), these expressions apply not to laying the foundation of a firm conscience, but are of force only when taken a posteriori. For there is no where such a fear of God as can give full security, and the saints are always conscious that any integrity which they may possess is mingled with many remains of the flesh. But as the fruits of regeneration furnish them with a proof of the Holy Spirit dwelling in them, experiencing God to be a Father in a matter of so much moment, they are strengthened in no slight degree to wait for his assistance in all their necessities. Even this they could not do, had they not previously perceived that the goodness of God is sealed to them by nothing but the certainty of the promise.
(Inst., III, 14, 19; my emphases)
In fact, Calvin expressly condemns this very sort of corrupted Christian doctrine of salvation, or soteriology, in Anabaptist thought (which is far more the origin of the errors we observe today):
Some Anabaptists in the present age mistake some indescribable sort of frenzied excess for the regeneration of the Spirit, holding that the children of God are restored to a state of innocence, and, therefore, need give themselves no anxiety about curbing the lust of the flesh; that they have the Spirit for their guide, and under his agency never err. It would be incredible that the human mind could proceed to such insanity, did they not openly and exultingly give utterance to their dogma. It is indeed monstrous, and yet it is just, that those who have resolved to turn the word of God into a lie, should thus be punished for their blasphemous audacity. Is it indeed true, that all distinction between base and honorable, just and unjust, good and evil, virtue and vice, is abolished? The distinction, they say, is from the curse of the old Adam, and from this we are exempted by Christ. There will be no difference, then, between whoredom and chastity, sincerity and craft, truth and falsehood, justice and robbery. Away with vain fear! (they say), the Spirit will not bid you do any thing that is wrong, provided you sincerely and boldly leave yourself to his agency. Who is not amazed at such monstrous doctrines? And yet this philosophy is popular with those who, blinded by insane lusts, have thrown off common sense. But what kind of Christ, pray, do they fabricate? what kind of Spirit do they belch forth? We acknowledge one Christ, and his one Spirit, whom the prophets foretold and the Gospel proclaims as actually manifested, but we hear nothing of this kind respecting him. That Spirit is not the patron of murder, adultery, drunkenness, pride, contention, avarice, and fraud, but the author of love, chastity, sobriety, modesty, peace, moderation, and truth. He is not a Spirit of giddiness, rushing rashly and precipitately, without regard to right and wrong, but full of wisdom and understanding, by which he can duly distinguish between justice and injustice. He instigates not to lawless and unrestrained licentiousness, but, discriminating between lawful and unlawful, teaches temperance and moderation. But why dwell longer in refuting that brutish frenzy? To Christians the Spirit of the Lord is not a turbulent phantom, which they themselves have produced by dreaming, or received ready-made by others; but they religiously seek the knowledge of him from Scripture, where two things are taught concerning him; first, that he is given to us for sanctification, that he may purge us from all iniquity and defilement, and bring us to the obedience of divine righteousness, an obedience which cannot exist unless the lusts to which these men would give loose reins are tamed and subdued; secondly that though purged by his sanctification, we are still beset by many vices and much weakness, so long as we are enclosed in the prison of the body. Thus it is, that placed at a great distance from perfection, we must always be endeavoring to make some progress, and daily struggling with the evil by which we are entangled. Hence, too, it follows, that, shaking off sloth and security, we must be intently vigilant, so as not to be taken unawares in the snares of our flesh; unless, indeed, we presume to think that we have made greater progress than the Apostle, who was buffeted by a messenger of Satan, in order that his strength might be perfected in weakness, and who gives in his own person a true, not a fictitious representation, of the strife between the Spirit and the flesh (2 Cor. 12:7, 9; Rom. 7:6).
(Inst., III, 3, 14; complete; my emphases)
Calvin again dispels caricatures of his soteriology (things that are taught by some Protestants today who are far less astute and biblical than Calvin and Luther were) in another passage:
Our last sentence may refute the impudent calumny of certain ungodly men, who charge us, first, with destroying good works and leading men away from the study of them, when we say, that men are not justified, and do not merit salvation by works; and, secondly, with making the means of justification too easy, when we say that it consists in the free remission of sins, and thus alluring men to sin to which they are already too much inclined. These calumnies, I say, are sufficiently refuted by that one sentence; however, I will briefly reply to both. The allegation is that justification by faith destroys good works. . . . that when faith is so highly extolled, works are deprived of their proper place. But what if they are rather ennobled and established? We dream not of a faith which is devoid of good works, nor of a justification which can exist without them: the only difference is, that while we acknowledge that faith and works are necessarily connected, we, however, place justification in faith, not in works. How this is done is easily explained, if we turn to Christ only, to whom our faith is directed and from whom it derives all its power. Why, then, are we justified by faith? Because by faith we apprehend the righteousness of Christ, which alone reconciles us to God. This faith, however, you cannot apprehend without at the same time apprehending sanctification; for Christ “is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption,” (1 Cor. 1:30). Christ, therefore, justifies no man without also sanctifying him. These blessings are conjoined by a perpetual and inseparable tie. Those whom he enlightens by his wisdom he redeems; whom he redeems he justifies; whom he justifies he sanctifies. But as the question relates only to justification and sanctification, to them let us confine ourselves. Though we distinguish between them, they are both inseparably comprehended in Christ. Would ye then obtain justification in Christ? You must previously possess Christ. But you cannot possess him without being made a partaker of his sanctification: for Christ cannot be divided. Since the Lord, therefore, does not grant us the enjoyment of these blessings without bestowing himself, he bestows both at once but never the one without the other. Thus it appears how true it is that we are justified not without, and yet not by works, since in the participation of Christ, by which we are justified, is contained not less sanctification than justification.
(Inst., III, 16, 1; my emphases)
Thirdly, Calvin denies that his "Reformed" view is overcome by the objection of James' remarks about faith and works. He shows again that those who would indulge in sin by claiming they were already justified, do wrongly, and contrary to his teaching:
I deny, then, that the passage of James which they are constantly holding up before us as if it were the shield of Achilles, gives them the slightest countenance. To make this plain, let us first attend to the scope of the Apostle, and then show wherein their hallucination consists. As at that time (and the evil has existed in the Church ever since) there were many who, while they gave manifest proof of their infidelity, by neglecting and omitting all the works peculiar to believers, ceased not falsely to glory in the name of faith, James here dissipates their vain confidence. His intention therefore is, not to derogate in any degree from the power of true faith, but to show how absurdly these triflers laid claim only to the empty name, and resting satisfied with it, felt secure in unrestrained indulgence in vice.
(Inst., III, 17, 11; my emphases)
Luther and Calvin represent the mainstream, "magisterial" or classic Protestant thought in theology. They do not teach cheap grace and completely separate works from faith, as if they are literally antithetical, but rather, teach that they are organically related, even though they formally separate, in the abstract, sanctification from justification, in terms of salvation itself.
Many Protestants today, indeed, do not seem to understand this and teach otherwise, and are rightly condemned in doing so, from Scripture, Calvin, and Luther, alike. But we must be careful not to project onto Luther and Calvin the distortions of later Protestants which have nothng to do wth their teachings.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2100+ papers & web pages (free) & 17 apologetic books (4 sale: 15 E-Books: $25)
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
japhy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Princeton, New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 237 |
| First Name: | Jeff | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic (Roman Rite) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 4th, 2008 03:07 am |
|
One aspect of 1 Peter 3:19-21 that I think is missed most of the time is that Peter is comparing the waters of BAPTISM to the waters of the FLOOD moreso than to the ark. In other words, Peter sees the waters of the FLOOD as being a means by which Noah and his family were saved. Of course, Noah and his family were saved from the flood waters themselves by the ark, but the waters themselves saved Noah and his family from something as well.
The flood waters washed away the corruption of the earth; in the same way, the baptism waters wash away the corruption of sin. Thus, just as eight people were SAVED THROUGH WATER (the flood), so BAPTISM saves us now.
Consider, then, the Church to be the ark that properly guides the man through the waters of baptism, so that the man himself is not wiped out by the waters.
Last edited on Thu Sep 4th, 2008 03:09 am by japhy
____________________
[Mary said,] "Do whatever he tells you." - John 2:5
My Blogs: The Cross Reference and Critical Mass
|
|
|
Current time is 08:38 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
