Some Passages from St. Bernard of Clairvaux & Thoughts

"And who need wonder when I say that the Word was united to human flesh through the faith of Mary, seeing that He received that same flesh from hers ? There is nothing in the foregoing explanation opposed to our regarding the faith of Mary as a type of the kingdom of heaven ; nor does it seem unfitting to compare her faith with the kingdom of heaven, since by that same faith its losses are repaired."

***

"O Lamb of God ! O truly meek Lamb ! do Thou open the book. Open out Thy pierced hands and feet, that the treasure of salvation and the plentiful redemption hidden
in them may come forth."

***

"If there be anyone stained with crime, and driven headlong by despair to the pit of destruction, let him call upon this life-giving name, and he will speedily be restored to hope and salvation. Is there anyone amongst you in hardness of heart, in sloth, or tepidity, in bitterness of mind, if he will but invoke the name of Jesus his heart will be softened, and tears of contrition will flow gently and abundantly. In dangers and distress, in fears and anxieties, let him call on this name of power, and his confidence will return, his peace of mind will be restored. Doubts and embarrassments will be dispelled and give place to certainty. There is no ill of life, no adversity or misfortune, in which this adorable name will not bring help and fortitude. It is a remedy whose virtue our dear Saviour invites us to test."

-----------------------------------------

I've always loved St. Bernard. I believe it was Calvin who cited him more than any other Christian author. He has such a lively faith, and a love for Jesus that just shines through the page. I wish I had someone like him to teach me the faith sometimes.

The pastor I've been meeting with has been great, and is very meek. Not at all argumentative or polemical, a quiet man. Of course as our Lord said, "they will all be taught by God" (Jn 6:45) so I suppose I have nothing to complain about. Just like the Blessed Virgin, and the Patriarchs, and St. Bernard (and Calvin?), all I can do is trust in the promises of God, and call upon the name of Jesus, for he - not me or anyone else - is my Saviour.

"they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."" - John 6:28-29

Jesus I trust in You

Which is more relevant?

At the risk of greatly oversimplifying things, I believe these two quotes consist of the main disagreement between Protestants and Catholics:

"...unless you understand first of all what your position is before God, and the judgment which he passes upon you, you have no foundation on which your salvation can be laid, or on which piety towards God can be reared" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 11.1, A.D. 1559).
(yes I stole that from Jay's blog)

or

"Anyone who is to find Christ must first find the church. How could anyone know where Christ is and what faith is in him unless he knew where his believers are?" - Martin Luther

Which is more important? The Existential (what must I do to be saved? - the question asked of Our Lord) or the Systemic (how can I know unless someone shows me - Ethiopian Eunuch). How does one choose between Aristotle and Kierkegaard?

Are Catholic & Reformed Epistemologies Converging?

I'm reading Hans Urs Von Balthasar's "Love Alone is Credible" and Karl Rahner's treatment of the Trinity, as well as considering the theology of Karl Barth, as well as that of Confessional Reformed Protestantism. Add to that Jaroslav Pelikan's last volume of Church History (1700-Vatican II) and you'll see where I'm drawing this.

In "classic" / Reformational differences, one important divergence seems to be this:

Reformed thinkers argued for a view I think best reflected by Cornelius Van Til's presuppositionalism. ie. You must accept that God exists and that the Bible (66 books) are divinely inspired. Until you do, I will undermine your worldview over and over and over, ad infinitum, until we get to my worldview. So eventually, everyone will accept sola scriptura, and when they open the bible they'll see double predestination, accept Calvin, and be saved, and we'll all live happily ever after.

This debatably stems from William of Ockham's rejection of Scholastic Realism in favor of Nominalism and the denial of universals. Thus Revelation and Faith were placed in opposition to Reason and Metaphysics. (though some Reformed thinkers have actually used Alot of Aquinas and to their credit, have come up with some good philosophy)

Roman thinkers have oppositely argued that the divine image implies a use of reason and that by using 'faith seeking understanding' and philosophical theology, metaphysics, etc, everyone in the world will eventually give their life to Aristotle, and come up with the Summa if they just try hard enough. And we'll all live happily ever after. (Although the Augustinians and some others like Bernard of Clairvaux have always rejected this kind of thing, arguing much more like Pascal that 'the heart has it's reasons' which the mind can't know).

So:

The sticky situation remained unresolvable, until recently.

Karl Barth came up with a beautiful exposition of nonfoundationalist Protestantism (partially Lutheran, partially Reformed), that caught the eye of Hans Urs Von Balthasar who came up with a beautiful exposition of nonfoundationalist Protestantism. Both of them kind of gave in to Van Til's method - a bit, not completely, you must note well - and argued for the supremacy of Scripture and Christ to EVERYTHING. Yes, even to some of our beloved traditions. Henri de Lubac apparently did something similar. Dei Verbum - the dogmatic constitution on Scripture in Vatican II gave over the Catholic hypothesis of the 2 source theory (Scripture + Tradition) in favour of the East Orthodox (Scripture as Tradition) theory, thus moving us another inch closer to Protestantism.

Now, in the face of Emergent church craziness, and Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic threats, the Reformed folks have kicked into high gear by reviving the "Tradition" part of their Tradition. Jonathon Edwards, John Calvin, and Martin Luther's books have been selling like hotcakes (except unlike these - which I've never seen sold, they're actually selling). Reformed Theologians are appealing to their creeds rather than "the Bible only" and using things like Chalcedon to smite Mormons, Unitarians, and American Millenarian Evangelicals and finally noticing that they're using Tradition.

Thus it seems Reformed Theology has stepped closer to Rome.

Conclusion:

I'm highly uneducated, and have only been involved in theology for 2 years or so, but it seems to me, that all this nonfoundational epistemology could mean new ecumenical possibilities for these 2 Traditions.

In a slightly different context, I discussed this with a Reformed Philosopher at my university the other day, and just by changing the philosophical groundwork, we were able to come to an agreement on huge issues. In that friendly environment, he admitted that Reformed theology functions greatly out of Tradition and that Sola Scriptura in it's sharpest understanding holds them back from alot, and I admitted that Catholic theology functions on the principle of claiming infallible statements, but then re-interpretting/defining them to the point where they are unrecognizable anymore.

Thus saw I the great influence of philosophy in theology. It undergirds everything.

So perhaps, if we could ever reach this kind of honesty, away from the glorification of either the Reformation or the Great Catholic Tradition, and simply 'gather round the cross' as Spurgeon used to say, we could come a few steps closer to reunion, even if nothing greater than that gets resolved.

But that will never happen, inevitably polemics will continue, new papal decrees on formerly heretical titles for the Virgin will be promulgated (*cough assumption*), and new books by R.C. Sproul and Michael Horton will be published against N.T. Wright and anything that moves against Traditional Sola Fide. And our children's children will be forced to continue these debates till Christ returns and tells us the East Orthodox were right and that all of us Western Heretics will be making license plates next to Origen, Erigena, and Marx for eternity, while our enthusiastic Greek neighbours begin to cross themselves backwards... (but that's just a guess).

Why Luther and I Think Calvin Is Wrong About The Eucharist

Ascension doesn't pose a problem unless you're a modernist who doesn't believe Jesus actually multiplied the loaves and fish in the feeding miracles, God can create as much of his body as he wants (which I'm sure is what GODzilla's redemptive message was). As well we can choose to or not to heed St. Augustine's warning that it is dangerous to think too greatly about the Ascension (and he didn't even know about the stratosphere, space, etc).

But to add more Augustine:

"For just as he remained with us even after his ascension, so we too are already in heaven with him, even though what is promised us has not yet been fulfilled in our bodies.

Christ is now exalted above the heavens, but he still suffers on earth all the pain that we, the members of his body, have to bear. He showed this when he cried out from above: Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? and when he said: I was hungry and you gave me food.

Why do we on earth not strive to find rest with him in heaven even now, through the faith, hope and love that unites us to him? While in heaven he is also with us; and we while on earth are with him." - St. Augustine of Hippo "Sermon on the Feast of the Ascension)

This however is my argument that oldest and most hated of Christian arguments: It's a mystery!

Luther's response is much more Biblical and difficult to refute:

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" - 1 Corinthians 10:16

Now unless St. Paul was really throwing us through a loop and the rhetorical answer was "no" it would appear that all Calvinist and Zwinglian interpretations which basically make it the Holy Spirit are at a loss here. It's the communion of the BODY and BLOOD of Christ NOT the SPIRIT of Christ. There. don't blame me, blame Sts. Paul, Augustine, and (un-st. ?) Martin Luther, and possibly God.

Conversion Stories - John Calvin, Martin Luther, Menno Simons, St. Ignatius Loyola

For a Reformation History Class I have to read, compare and contrast the autobiographical conversions of Luther, Calvin, Menno, and Ignatius. I don't think our Prof picked the best sources, but nonetheless it's interesting reading them after my re-conversion (conversion to Catholicism, rather than conversion to Christ).

Menno Simons: growing up in a half-Mennonite background I have to say this guy stuck out like a sore thumb. He is so legalistic and self-righteous that it amazes me he could ever be said to have a share in the gospel of grace and faith alone (Maybe they should exclude the Anabaptists). He ends up describing how awesome he is as a biblical expositor and mentions that after conversing with Luther, Bucer, and Bullinger on infant baptism that they are all 'unbiblical' and foolish. He also notes that every Christian MUST be a pacifist, etc. Didn't like him at all. He ends his story by accusing the Catholics of being unbiblical because they allow repentant sinners to have communion, and that the Catholics should expel all "unrighteous persons" from their midst. ....seriously, does this guy even believe in imputed righteousness?!

Calvin: He can't seem to speak two sentences without mentioning the bondage of the will, everything he says about himself is in the passive voice. "I was forced by the divine will" I was "compelled against my will", the "violent hand of Heaven was upon me". Like we get it: you believe in predestination. He also uses the predestination thing to excuse himself from the guilt of executing heretics (he refers to them in the plural, so it makes me wonder if he only ever killed that unitarian doctor). The funniest part was when he made his exile from Geneva look like an accident. All in all, better than Simons, more humble for sure.

Ignatius Loyola: Here is where no one can call me biased. I think Ignatius was kind of dumb. For the sake of beauty he endures greatly painful surgery and then claims this pain was 'suffering for Christ'. He's basically converted by a Marian Ghost and a few Spanish hagiographies, and he has the arrogance to say that he wanted to out-saint St. Francis and St. Dominic (thus he would try to show his Jesuits better than the Franciscans and Dominicans). Kind of a hot-headed, theologically-ignorant, Spaniard. But he did find some good friends like St. Francis Xavier, and St. Robert Bellarmine, so I'll give him that, but from this reading he seemed to be my least favourite Jesuit.

Martin Luther: There's something about Luther, he's someone you just gotta love, or at least love to hate. While I do think it's ridiculous how he treated his prince like a bodyguard and glorified Church-State relations to the point of Caesaro-Papism just because it suited him, I still must say he is an awesome figure. He describes his holiness as a Catholic monk and his entire conversion seems to have nothing to do with "becoming a righteous Christian" but rather accepting Christ's righteousness and leaving it and simply being joyful about that. Even if he is a heretic, I think I'll always admire Luther in some ways (if nothing else, for giving me attacks on Reformed & Anabaptist Theology/Sacramentology)

In What Way Can Catholicism Speak of a Substitution of Christ and Us

I have a (formerly Lutheran, now Driscollite / neo-neo-calvinist) friend who said to me one night with much frustration across a kitchen table: "what do you believe the Cross even did?". I think I honestly and jokingly answered 'nothing' but I might've used a quasi-arminian "potentiality" explanation.

The problem seems to be, with all of our anti-Protestant theology we Catholics rapidly lost the ability to speak of God's efficacious grace and the salvation won on the cross as a solid theology. Rather now it seems to be a theology based on human will and potential salvation rather than divine will and efficient salvation.

As far as I can see, Catholicism objects to the notion that the Father punishes the Son for atonement of the sins of the elect, and that they instead stick with St. Anselm who phrased it more along the lines of: Christ did something good for God which we couldn't do, but which we were obligated to do. Thus somehow through baptism, penance, etc, we get that goodness (Merit?) applied to us.

Correct me if I'm wrong there.

I really want to get as close to Penal Substitution as possible within Catholic orthodoxy, because it makes me feel at ease and allows me to rest from trying to frantically accumulate merit.

It's so hard to distinguish between St. Anselm and Calvin for me. There is such a fine line when discussing what Christ did in a substitutionary manner, and what he didn't do. Like I think it's Morally, and Meritoriously proper to say Christ acted on our behalf, but not legally.... Aquinas' scholasticism confuses me at times, at least Augustine's neo-platonism was easy to get.

Then you have Hans Urs Von Balthasar who basically made Penal Substitution Catholic by saying that a finite amount of sin was placed between the infinite distance of the Father and the Son and burned up completely by their love. This is my favourite of all atonement models, and while it was taught by a fairly orthodox and highly respected Catholic theologian, many traditionalists probably dislike it because they'd say it tends towards universalism and is too similar to Penal Substitution, even though it technicaly avoids the anathemas.

If it's possible to hold Von Balthasar's Christology/Soteriology while remaining within Roman orthodoxy, then I'd like to hold it, I just don't know enough.

Funny Calvinist Video

Today I met 2 Professors who were Calvinists and we have to read Barth for philosophy and Calvin in the Reformation History class I have. So I was all Calvin'd out today and I thought it'd be funny to link this clip that has circulated alot already online:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1ckoCBtXvU&feature=player_embedded#t=24

I saw this weeks ago, but I figured I should post it. I like it when the preacher just shouts "who are you to reply to the lord in sin did your mother concieve you"

I should try using that some day when witnessing...

The Strongest Defense of Reformed Theology

I came home on lunch break and opened my bible to read something and the first verse I see is: "God has destined us not for wrath but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus" - 1 Th. 5:9

Predestination is an amazingly biblical doctrine, it's everywhere. In the words of Charles Spurgeon, "there is no greater Predestinarian than Paul in Romans 9 to 11". After being a Calvinist for a while (some will contest whether I ever was), I found the doctrine very biblical, pastoral, and most importantly (joke) very Augustinian. Reading Pelikan, it's funny he says that the pseudo-Augustine triumphed over the real Augustine in the predestinarian controversy in the 9th century. It's probably the only area I would concede to the Presbyterians that they are more Augustinian than we are on.

So while I am happily Roman Catholic, if I had to find the strongest opposition to Catholicism, I'd be a Calvinist in the Anglican Church. Then you get the strength of Anglo-Catholic ecclesiology, with the strength of Calvin's doctrine of predestination.

... I talk about theologies as if they are fighting robots or something.

Pelikan, Waugh, & Williams - Thoughts on Vacation Reading

I'm almost done Volume 4 "Reformation of Church and Dogma" by Jaroslav Pelikan. I read a big chunk of it on my vacation this last week, and I've really enjoyed it. I didn't want to read anything about Zwingli or any more about Calvin (no offense), but I pushed on through that part and got to Trent which I thoroughly enjoyed. I feel like Pelikan is the most objective historian out there. He doesn't single-mindedly affirm any position really, and he puts in really interesting facts about them. I never knew how big an impact Zwingli and the Remonstrants (or was it Anti-Remonstrants?) / Arminians had on the Reformed Tradition. I also felt more and more that Luther was much more Catholic than any of the other Reformers. I don't know which one of Pelikan's Dogmatic histories to read next. I've done 3 and now am finishing 4, but I really don't care about the East/Orthodox (typical Catholic) and I don't know if his book on modern theology (Volume 5, 1700-present) includes any Catholic stuff, so I might get his 1st volume.

I bought and finished reading "Brideshead Revisited" by Evelyn Waugh. I really enjoyed it. It had been so long since I read fiction that it was refreshing. The way he writes characters and how realistic everything seems is almost eerie. Granted it wasn't the most exciting book in the world, but I still heartily enjoyed it. There were alot of great Catholic moments that made it a bit of an indulgence into my fantasy world: English Catholicism from 1850-1950 (the only area of modern history I would consider doing history graduate work in).

Finally, I'm almost finished reading "A Ray of Darkness" by Rowan Williams (written before he was Archbishop of Canterbury). As I was reading them I remarked that it was the weirdest author I've ever read in that within the same paragraph I could highlight an idea I completely agreed with, and another idea I absolutely hated. Abp. Williams had that Anglican/Anglo-Catholic style I love where they teach the Catholic and Protestant doctrines and then show how both of them are in a way wrong and then propose some new idea or middle ground. His theology is so strange, because he cites almost exclusively Roman Catholic authors (Hans Urs Von Balthasar for example), and pre-reformation (Catholic?) mystics like St. John of the Cross, and St. Teresa of Avila. He seems to have no Protestant thinkers outside John Donne (a former Catholic) that influence his theology (obviously there are some, but he never cites them). His deeply personal and poetic style has taught me alot about homiletics (even just by reading), and I have much more respect for him. Some sermons in the collection were great and I've highlighted almost all of them, and others are just empty modernism and mockery towards any Christian claiming to have absolute truth. All in all I've enjoyed it though, and I think I'll continue to read him.

I'd recommend all these books.

Merit In Laymen's Terms

Since I've entered the Catholic (or Apostate) Communion I've not posted alot on theology because I've realized how little I understand or know about Catholic theology. Most of my ideas are still Reformed or Evangelical and I feel like the only way to describe it is Chesterton's line in his book on Conversion and the Catholic Church where he says that when you walk into the Church you realize that it's much bigger on the inside, that it's gigantic. I had to face the fact that I might not actually ever fully comprehend my religion. Anyway, I figured since Merit is a topic I knew almost nothing about, I'd try to understand it.

Here are the sources I stole my info from:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10202b.htm
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/02/merit-clarification-of-catholic.html
http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma9.php

Nothing I write is 'magesterial' or anything, I'm just a lay Catholic trying to understand this.

Catholic Teaching on Justification and Merit
Catholic Theology has always taught and always will teach what it has since the Augustine-Pelagian controversy, that man is freely justified by God's grace which is unmeritted and that without this grace it is impossible to do good works which either merit eternal rewards or one's salvation. Merit comes after the application of Justification (baptism in infants, faith and/or baptism in adults, priestly absolution for those in a state of mortal sin). But the tricky thing one must remember when studying Catholic theology is that they believe everything is by grace, but it's resistible grace (think Wesley and everyone Calvin was against) meaning that theoretically God could be beaming down grace to me in every decision I make, but I could still reject it 100 times before I accept it once. The thing to remember also is that much of Catholic theology does not constantly repeat the premiss that grace comes first and is unmeritted. It's kind of a given in Western Christendom.

Types of Merit
I'll use myself as an example. So for me, a recently absolved, baptized, and faithful Catholic who has definately committed venial sins this week, but is still in a state of grace, there are two kinds of merit I could achieve.

1) Congruent Merit
Congruent Merit would be like if I was really hungry and wanted all the perogies in the fridge but then presumably God gave me the grace to tell my cousin she could have some and her then consuming said perogies and thanking me. Now I've done a virtuous thing not out of obligation and not of absolutely pure motive, but because it was prompted by grace and was an act of Christian charity, presumably God would consider it meritous, pleasing, and if he is feeling merciful on judgment day, he will give me a gold star or remove a day from my millenia in Purgatory. Congruent merit isn't as certain, it's more just the hope that God will look on all the good things I did by his grace and because of his graciousness and mercy he will reward me.

2) Condign Merit
Condign Merit would be a much bigger thing. Imagine while my cousin was enjoying the perogies a robber burst in and was going to kill my cousin, and I suddenly was zapped by God's grace and was filled with absolute compassion and sacrificial love and I died protecting my cousin from this evil murderous robber. That would be an act that kind of earns a real reward from God. To use a biblical example, St. James states that those who persevere under temptation will recieve from God a crown of life, or in Revelation when the Martyrs are given crowns, etc.

This is my basic understanding.

Things I appreciate about Calvinism

Just to prove from my last post that I am not overtly anti-Calvinist any more than I am anti-anything other than Catholicism, I thought I'd post some things I enjoy about Calvinism.



1. God-Centredness. It tries to begin and end with God which much of decision-theology fails to do. At times when I read a hymn or passage by someone of the Reformed persuasion I conjure in my mind John Calvin standing next to St. Ignatius Loyola in Heaven shouting "Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam!" and Loyola equally chanting "Soli Deo Gloria!". I am comforted that even though our two factions will most likely fight for the next 500-1000 years, at least we are all fighting in defense of the same God whom we love above all else.



2. Word and Sacrament. Calvinism's ideal is a focus on Word and Sacrament. Standing in St. Giles Cathedral (I hope that's the right name) in Edinburgh, Scotland, I remember taking communion and hearing a beautiful sermon. I think back to myself how such a perfect balance of these two essential of essentials came together in revery. To the shock of many, I am a Catholic who loves the Bible and wishes we could give even more time and study to it, and so I love seeing the passion Reformation Christians have for the inspired written Word of God.



3. Holiness. I still enjoy reading R.C. Sproul, Jonathon Edwards (especially "Sinners in the hands of an angry God" - beautiful sermon), and occasionally listening to Alistair Begg all discuss the Holiness of God, though when they discuss it they do so out of teaching the imputed active obedience and righteousness of Christ, and when I think of it, I imagine purgatory and the perfection of souls into the true and unequivocal holiness of Christ. The Puritans also had a firm grasp on right living and the law of Christ/Sanctification which I greatly admire.



4. Heroes: I will always look up to in some way, Hudson Taylor, Francis Schaeffer, Charles Spurgeon, George Whitefield and others.



5. Intellectualism. Many Protestants follow in Luther's Nominalism and thereby restate his opinion "the theologian must first dispose of Aristotle", however Reformed Theology has a minor tradition of Natural Law and Natural Theology (Common Grace, etc) and many current Reformed Theologians have even ascended to a form of Protestant Thomism, and don't shy away from Philosophy.

Calvin's Heaven

I'm not attempting to be mean-spirited about this blog, I'm just responding to all the readings I've done from the Reformed blogosphere, and writing tongue-in-cheek about their grandiose anathemas to traditional/pre-Reformation christendom.

I was reading John Piper's blog/Desiring God for some reason - another Reformed blog linked me there, and every Reformed Christian I heard writing said "Roman Catholics are not going to heaven because they don't believe the proper biblical doctrine of justification" .

I've fought about this issue ad infinitum, with peace of mind and clarity of conscience I've chosen to side with St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, The Council of Trent, and N.T. Wright in disagreeing with Luther. I wrote a blog the other day (http://theologyofandrew.blogspot.com/2009/03/im-good-enough-for-dr-alister-mcgrath.html) with extensive quotes from one of my favourite Evangelical Anglicans - Dr. Alister McGrath, showing how clearly the Reformation strayed from Augustinian justification systems, and basically Luther was a pioneer when it came to sola fide (theoretically excepting St. Paul). Now McGrath still sides with Luther and believes that all the early Christians were wrong, but he at least gives us papists a fair defense, namely, that we're only following the false doctrines of the early church.

I also find it hillarious that our "heresies" like the real presence, sacrifice of the mass, hierarchical episcopacy, Petrine supremacy, and more were all being taught and expounded while St. John the Evangelist's corpse was still warm.

Then I actually thought for a second about the argument of the Reformation Christians. They honestly believe that God has predestined 16 centuries of apostate Christians (including Augustine, Aquinas, and all the Church Fathers remember) to Hell. And not only that, but the Calvinists I read, say that Arminians as well are going to Hell, because they attach a work -human choice- to grace. So, sitting next to St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Irenaeus, Mother Teresa etc, will be C.S. Lewis (believed in purgatory, denied Protestant view of Atonement) in Hell will possibly be John Wesley, and Rick Warren and Billy Graham (when they die).

So then I kept on thinking, the (Eastern) Orthodox who do not hold a Protestant view of justification also must stand condemned. In my mind the next people to take chairs beside Billy Graham, were Bishop Timothy Kallistos Ware, Frank Schaeffer, and Jaroslav Pelikan.

So here we have it, throughout all of history only those born after the 1550s (approximately), and only those with full rational capacity (Mentally handicapped, take a seat next to Pelikan, because you can't logically adhere to the correct theology), and only those who properly understood Justification by faith alone - and only those who by Justification mean Christ's extrinsic and alien imputed righteousness, indelibly applied to the believer at the moment of faith alone in Christ alone - not a decision or choice for Jesus.

I've heard Dr. R.C. Sproul's passionate and fairly reasoned defense of such views, hey at least the Calvinists are honest about their heritage. But I just have to say that even though I'm going to Hell, maybe it won't be bad with some of the most charitable, loving, and Christ-centred reprobates I've ever read about (but it's not like I chose to go to Hell, it's God's fault for predestining me this way, and not providing me with irresistible grace, so I guess I shouldn't feel as guilty about it).

Well, Augustine, Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, Mother Teresa, and John Wesley (maybe), save me a seat by the fire!

"For God so predestined the world, that whosoever believeth in Calvin's Dogma of Justification, shall not perish, but have eternal life" -I think that's how the ESV will translate it for future generations.

... of course there's also the other argument provided by that trouble-making, pelagian, reprobate Peter...

"Then Peter began to speak to them: ‘I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him." - Acts 10:34-35

Casual thoughts on Substitutionary Atonement

I was listening to a Sufjan Stevens song today and he mentioned the Substitutionary Atonement, the great dogma of Western Christianity. But I realized today that the doctrine of Penal Substitution - the central key to my lifelong faith - is not compatible with Catholicism... I think this is pretty stupid, as John Calvin pretty much just does a better job than Anselm at explaining the Atonement. I always saw Penal Substitution merely as a further improvement or development of Aquinas, which was a development of Anselm which was a development of Augustine and Athanasius.

I read Isaiah 53 today and Romans 5. There can be nothing clearer than the fact that Christ died in our place, was punished for our sins. St. Anselm just based his theory on some Regal understanding of God's kingship and the need for honour. But this is obviously outdated. Ugh and I found this page that made me feel sick: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Reparation_to_Jesus_Christ ... "Acts of Reparation to Jesus Christ" - I've not heard such a blasphemous title in my life. How on earth could any human pay Christ for anything. Penance is a legal fiction.

Yep... well maybe I should just stop reading my bible, as even when doctrines are clearly outlined I'm not allowed to believe them unless someone said something about it in the 3rd or 4th century affirming them.. . stupid church fathers.... gah. I hate my religion. (but of course sola scriptura makes no sense, and protestant ecclesiology is untraditional and bankrupt, and the Orthodox are racist shut ins). I'm also obligated to believe that Christ established the Church, but on days like today I really wish he established a better Church, because his is annoying me.

On a better note I talked with the Monsignor today and he said that Baptist baptisms are valid. So that's cool, because I wouldn't have wanted to affront God's honour by using the wrong water or words or intent.

So in the end the substitutionary atonement makes sense to me and was a pillar in my faith but at the same time I understand Catholic attacks on it:

1. Giving pardon does not square with taking satisfaction;
2. There is nothing that conforms with justice about punishing the innocent and letting the guilty go free;
3. The temporary death of one is not a substitute for the eternal death of many;
4. Perfect substitutionary satisfaction would confer on its beneficiaries an unlimited permission to sin.

So I guess number 3 kinda proves it, but at the same time as i will say that I will stick with what the Church teaches and try to figure out Anselm's formulation, I just feel rather attached to Penal Substitution. It makes so much sense, and it makes me happier, just like sola fide and Lutheran anti-nomianism...

I prophesy that one day I will become an Anglican and indulge myself in all these wonderful biblical heresies and finally be at peace.

this is just me venting, don't bother taking anything too seriously written above.

Gregory the Great on Job

I've started re-reading the book of Job and was looking for a patristic commentary on it and I found out that Pope St. Gregory the Great, who according to Calvin was 'the last good pope', wrote a commentary on Job. I couldn't find it on Newadvent or any other site, but I finally found it here: http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/01p/0590-0604,_SS_Gregorius_I_Magnus,_Moralia_in_Job,_EN.doc and it's like 177 pages. Right now I'm about 500 pages behind on reading for school, but I'd like to try and read it alongside Job. It could be fun.

I like the introduction to it already, it's really honest about his life and reminds me a bit of St. Augustine's Confessions:

"I had long fended off the grace that would convert me, and how even after I was touched by the longing for heaven I chose to stay hidden beneath worldly garb. I had already been shown the love of eternity that should fill my desires, but the chains of long-bred habit kept me from altering my outer way of life. While my heart forced me to go on serving this world (at least to all appearances) many worldly pressures began to arise that threatened to bind me to this world not in appearance only but (what is more burdensome) in mind as well. Finally I fled all that in my anxiety and sought the cloister's harbor. I thought, in vain as it turned out, that I had finally abandoned the things of the world and come to shore naked from the shipwreck that is this life. But often a storm arises and the waves blast a carelessly moored ship away from even the safest port. Thus suddenly I found myself, under cover of Holy Orders, back on the sea of secular affairs."

It's this kind of description which reminds me of how the monastic movement started, out of a sincere devotion to God. Ultimately anyone familiar with late medieval history will realize the dream eventually turned into a nightmare and in many places monasteries were quite corrupt. In any case, this is quite a story I hope I eventually get to read.

Monergism and Romans 3:23-28

I was reading my Grandpa's Bible that was given to him in 1946 when he married my Grandma. It's an old King James with all his written notes. I was also listening to Tony Evans tonight who I love, what a great Protestant Preacher. And I've been at the point where I constantly think 'i'm going to hell' so I opened up at Romans. I read this passage:

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." - Romans 3:23-28

The phrase "That he might be just, and the justifier" utterly clashes with all of modern Catholicism. It is complete Monergism. The idea that God does EVERYTHING and humans do NOTHING. This is what St. Paul seems to be making abundantly clear. There is no simpler way of putting it apparently. It would seem that God is just, and that he justifies those who believe in him. They don't justify themselves. It's not that they believe and are justified, it's that God justifies them and they believe. It's almost like he predestined them or something crazy like that, almost as if they had no say in the matter. This doesn't mesh with my Theology

I picked up Calvin again and he echoes this theme well, he quotes St. Boniface saying: "Human beings are the work of God insofar as they are human, but they are under the control of the devil insofar as they are sinners, unless they are rescued from there through Christ" (Bondage and Liberation of the Will pp 40-41)

And then Calvin adds of his own "the godly, being thoroughly emptied of all misplaced confidence in themselves, [an attitude] which is true humility indeed, make room for the grace of God, from which they may draw strength. Therefore in issuing commands and exhortations God does not take account of our strength, since he gives that very thing which he demands and gives it for the reason that by ourselves we are helpless." (Bondage and Liberation of the Will pp 41-42)

Interesting thoughts on the passage. If only they were right. Calvin may claim to be an Augustinian, but his Ecclesiology is entirely un-Augustinian. Thus I shall continue in Catholicism, for as St. Augustine said, "The Church is a whore, but she's my mother". God never gives us the choice of making a new church. So Ecclesiologically I must remain Catholic, but I still enjoy Calvin. He makes me feel redeemed even though I've done nothing Christ-like for probably a year. In my mind sola fide + election = apathy and sin = Calvin/Luther. But I'm glad some folks like Jared and the many Presbyterians I know can get a great deal from it. For me I doubt anything will work.

God bless my friends.

Andrew the Reprobate - Why I can never be a Humanist

Although I've read and continue to read alot of the pagan philosophers (Aristotle, Plato, etc) and the Enlightenment thinkers (Tom Paine, Gibbon, Rousseau, etc) I have to say that there's one reason I cannot be a Humanist in the modern sense of the word. I absolutely disagree with the idea that man is inherently good or even neutral. In the words of the genius Karl Barth "Man is not good, man has never been good, and man will never be good". I know above all else that I myself am a reprobate.

As much as I've divinized these men, the Church Fathers did teach some strange things. Origen for example said, "The power of choosing good and evil is within the reach of all.". A more simple definition of the Pelagian heresy could hardly be put forth.

As much as I've villainized the men, Luther and Calvin have taught things which resonate deeply with my Christian experience. I am disgusted with reading all this Jesuit/Molinist/Humanistic garbage about the goodness of man and his ability to triumph. I'm at the point where I'm obliged to believe that everyone is made Imago Dei and to downplay the fall to a slight mistake, so my current theology is that while I cannot apply St. Paul's, St. Augustines, Blaise Pascal's, Martin Luther's, or John Calvin's theologies of human nature to the world at large I can apply them to myself.

I know and have learned in the last year that above all I am a reprobate. I don't actually read Calvin alot anymore so i'm not trying to show off -as if I found this myself- but I found this online and liked it alot. It totally slaps Catholicism in the face, but only post-trent semi-pelagian Catholicism.

"...our nature is not only destitute of all good, but is so fertile in all evils that it cannot remain inactive. Those who have called it concupiscence have used an expression not improper, if it were only added, which is far from being conceded by most persons, that everything in man, the understanding and will, the soul and body, is polluted and engrossed by this concupiscence; or, to express it more briefly, that man is of himself nothing else but concupiscence." (Institutes, Vol. I, Bk. II, Chap. 1, Para. 8; Allen translation.)

We had to listen last week in RCIA to a lecture on not being able to sin without willing it or wanting to, which I thought was the most anti-Augustinian thing I'd ever heard, and so I wanted to meditate on some Calvin. In Catholicism we say only some actions have concupiscence or we are culpable - blameable for. Here Calvin is saying that man is NOTHING but guilt and willful sin. lol. it's sad because it's true.

I find it funny that when I discussed theology last night it was in an intense debate with a Protestant Pastor, I was challenging him with the high ethical standards of scripture when I realized that I had spent the entire day in sin, utter chosen sin, and here I was preaching. It was at that moment that I remembered St. Paul in Philippians talking about those who preach for benefit or personal glory. I myself I think do it out of habit or for the sake of argument, there is no genuine desire for real virtue or godliness, just winning an argument, or shattering someone's certainty.

A Buddhist I debated last month said to me "Are you so closed minded as to think ONLY Christians go to Heaven!?" and I actually laughed and said "Far from it, I don't even believe all Christians are going to Heaven, I don't even think I'm going to Heaven (I'm currently in a state of Mortal sin and haven't confessed to a priest and received absolution so in Catholicism I am hell-bound)". Frank Schaeffer once got alot of flak for saying "I hope God exists, I hope I go to Heaven but my faith is less certainty and more hope" - or something to that effect. Well I know God exists philosophically, I know there is a standard, and I know that I do not measure up to it, as Calvin says: "soul and body, is polluted"

Thus while I may not be able to say much from scripture without hypocrisy, on that fateful day when it is read from the pulpit "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure." (Jer 17.9) I can add an "Amen".

And when I look at the world I see everyday I have to agree with the observation that: "The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain."

A Reformed/Calvinist Catholic?

I found an interesting article written by a Presbyterian Minister who became a Roman Catholic, the article is all about the similarities between Calvinism and Catholicism and how you can basically be a 3-ish point Calvinist while being a Catholic (closer to Calvin than the Methodists are). I really like the article alot, as I find myself leaning strongly Augustinian/Thomistic on views of the fall, predestination, unconditional election, and irresistible grace (even though it got killed at Trent).

Here it is: http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm

It's nice to be reminded that of all the good doctrines Catholics can hold - even though the Church at large seems to hide quite well or water down quite a bit the doctrines of grace.

The Sacraments: Are They A Lie?

I think that the Reformation initially retained a Sacramental Piety, however I've come to realize once more how important the Sacraments are in the discussion of theology. If the sacraments are means of communicating grace (Catholicism) or if they are superstitious and empty rituals.

This is also not so much a Catholic - Protestant issue, as it is a more specific Calvinist & Zwinglian versus Catholic and to a lesser extent Lutheran and Anglican.

The question is not simply one of whether there are 7 Sacraments: Baptism, Communion, Confirmation, Penance, Marriage, Extreme Unction, and Holy Orders, or just the first 2. It is also a question of what do the sacraments do? what is their purpose. The question after that though is one of the very character of God. Does God care about the outward and physical or is he only concerned with the inner and spiritual.

The problem is that our Christian Ethics are Ontological rather than Teleological - they are based on the motive of the doer, rather than just the outcome. Was it T.S. Eliot who said the greatest sin was doing the right thing for the wrong reason? (if not it was some other British poet). SO one has to question why God would imbue special powers to actions.

The Calvinist position as I understand it is that God works effectually outside the sacraments in that the baptism which forgives you is the baptism of the Holy Spirit which occurs at the moment of saving faith. The infant baptism is just a covenantal sign, but ultimately it has no purpose other than marking the visible from the invisible church, but since in Calvinistic Ecclesiology (doctrine of the Church) the 'true' church is always the invisible church anyway, so there really isn't any point in being in the 'visible' church.

The Catholic position as I've argued before is that the sacraments have power. They actually are objective means of receiving grace. Every time you receive the Eucharist you are recieving the physical body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ (I don't know how one receives his soul if it's his body, but there is probably something about it in Aquinas or a Scholastic, so I won't argue it...maybe I got it wrong by including his soul, nevermind). Likewise when you are absolved and forgiven of your sins by a priest you are forgiven by God Himself.

There are many biblical and historical arguments I've already listed in favour of a literal interpretation of Christ's words about the Holy Communion, and the Sacrament of Confession/Penance, and an argument for regenerative baptism (it forgives your sins). If you wish to see more just check out one of these sites: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/10/topical-index-pages.html, or http://www.phatmass.com/directory/

The basic question though is why God would promise such Power to the Church? Why would he give frail men the ability to bind and loose, why would he give the keys of the Kingdom to St. Peter and allow men to determine who enters the Kingdom of Heaven. In all honesty, it gives me two thoughts:
1) God has stupidly given too much power to the Church
2) The Bible must be written by the Church as a means to claim supernatural power

The third option of course is that the Sacraments actually do have power and are efficatious, that God does care about physical actions. As C.S. Lewis put it in his defense of grace through the sacraments in Mere Christianity, God has no problem with matter, he created it, and it's no use trying to be more spiritual than God.

I was thinking the other day about Rob Bell's "The gods aren't angry" and how he proposes that none of the Israelite offerings in the Old Covenent satisfied God as he didn't 'need' blood. He also asked the question "Does your God need to hurt someone so that he can love?" it sounds like a great atheistic question and I've finally come to believe (as all Christians holding to either Calvin's Substitution or St. Anselm's Satisfaction theology of Atonement should) that yes God does have to hurt so that he can Love. But in essence he hurts himself, in Christ, he provides the sacrifice, which becomes an eternal part of his nature (Christ's eternal sacrifice).

I also remembered the 2 stories of God's anger towards violations of his covenants. The Second is of course 1 Corinthians 11 where St. Paul writes that those who partook of the Eucharist in an unworthy manner 'drank God's wrath against themselves' and 'were guilty of the body and blood of our Lord' and that this misuse resulted in illness and death. The first however is more obscure, I read about it in Exodus 4 at Capernwray Bible School and it was a blessing to be 'forced' to read the whole bible so that now I am more aware of all these extra stories.

The story is about Moses going into Egypt after receiving his mission from God in the Burning Bush, Zipporah and Moses are travelling with their son when we hear this:

"On the way, at a place where they spent the night, the Lord met him and tried to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched Moses’ feet with it, and said, ‘Truly you are a bridegroom of blood to me!’ So he let him alone. It was then she said, ‘A bridegroom of blood by circumcision.’ "" - Exodus 4:24-26

It seems odd to us that God would plan on killing Moses for not performing this outward circumcision rite. We are constantly taught in the New Testament that "circumcision nor uncircumcision availeth anything" (Gal 5) and likewise by St. Stephen the Martyr that we are to have 'circumcised hearts' not dead rituals. However it seems that in this story God disagrees, not in a way contradictory to the New Testament but in a way contradictory to my former interpretation. What if God really does care about the Sacraments about his Covenantal signs and realities. It isn't all bad though, it's also a huge gift, for maybe God really does work through the sacraments. Maybe that is why the Eucharist means 'the Good Gift' (or at least that's what someone told me).

The real question then is why no angel killed Zwingli? but I guess 'where sin abounded grace abounded all the more' (Rm 5.20)

An interesting book on this topic which I hope to buy soon is Dr. Scott Hahn's "Swear to God: God's Promise and Power of the Sacraments" http://www.amazon.com/Swear-God-Promise-Power-Sacraments/dp/0385509316/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221099823&sr=1-11.

Honest To God - Part 1 - The Gospel

The very controversial book by an Anglican bishop titled 'Honest to God' was the work of famous (or rather infamous) liberal theology and a general attack at Traditional Christian Theology. I'm not going liberal (though I do like the Quakers), but I decided that instead of constantly publishing polemics, this series is going to go in favor of a more personal approach to theology. Rather than entrenching myself within Catholicism or Protestantism, I'll just state my beliefs about things from my limited reading of Tradition/Church Fathers, Scripture, Logic, and Personal Experience (Wesleyan quadrilateral is my favourite approach to Christianity).

I'm hoping to cover 3 topics:

1. The Gospel
2. The Holy Spirit
3. The Sacraments

*note: Today I signed up for RCIA at the Catholic Cathedral in town, so please don't guilt trip me about not being Catholic enough, I'm following through with it. Thus my Catholic Ecclesiology has beat my Protestant Soteriology, and Church Tradition/History has beat Scripture.

Man:
"Man is nothing but a subject so naturally full of error that it can only be eradicated through grace." -Blaise Pascal

I've heard alot of arguments on the subject, I think in the end that St. Augustine, and John Calvin are correct in their assessment. I believe that the unregenerate man can neither do good, nor even think it, as the Bondage and Liberation of the Will says. I think mankind only has the free choice to choose between sin and sin.

Christ:
I believe that at the culmination of the ages, Christ came as the God-Man to reconcile the world to God and redeem those the father had given him. I believe as Scripture says that Christ died for all, and his message should be addressed to all people, yet at the same time his sacrifice was only efficient for some. I've been influenced alot by reading "Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism" by Iain Murray, in understanding the balance and historic Calvinism.

I don't know about the saints or mother teresa or others, but in my own personal opinion and in contradiction to the teaching of my church, I believe that I have nothing to offer God, and that as a begger I come to the Lord, unconditionally elected, and saved solely by his grace alone. Even my repentence is done in selfishness and fear of Hell, but trusting Christ, I believe he will lead me to Heaven.

I read this verse today which comforted me greatly "I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me" -John 10:14

Calvinism:
For those of you who know theology, you'll realize I basically have a completely Reformed/Calvinistic view of Salvation (Soteriology), you are right in saying that. I just don't know how to explain the Gospel in Catholic terms, the Reformed/Augustinian way is the only way I understand.

Whenever I explain the gospel in Catholicism, I can usually convince people - it's almost the same gospel as Methodism/Wesleyan/Arminianism - but for me on a completely individual and personal level the Gospel of the Church Fathers and of the Catholic Church is terrible news. It's a requirement I could never live up to (perfection), and it makes Christ more of a legalist than a lover. The Early Church (2nd century) even taught that if you sinned after baptism you could not be forgiven, as J.N.D. Kelly points out. But I think I'll be a sinner my whole life. Simul Iust et Pecatur or something like that right?

I hope against hope that Christ loves me unconditionally and not based on my own merits or acheivements. These are the things that God has revealed to me personally in my life, as I said, I cannot provide logically indefensible proof for why I believe them, and I am branded a heretic for believing them in the Communion of Rome, please don't remind me, I KNOW.

Conclusion:
I am still becoming a Roman Catholic, but this kind of message or Gospel -whether or not it is 'another gospel' (Gal 1:8) - will always bring tears to my eyes. If God took me back in time and gave me one request, one thing I could make to be true, it would be salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone. But as I said, I don't 'really' believe it, and see tons of problems with it, etc. But again this is just at a personal level.

I really wish I was " justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith" - Romans 3:24-25

The Gift of God - Covenent, Salvation and Christology

I have been struggling with the age old issue that seperates Protestants and Catholics: What place do works have in salvation? I find that there are 3 key texts for understanding this (in my pathetic opinion) James 2, Ephesians 2, and Matthew 25.

I've already done James 2, and I must say that Catholics win some ground in that it does *sound like a refutation of Sola Fide, although Calvin and Jared compose a good counter-argument. The main problem is the fact that if they are right (Catholics), how on earth do faiths retain our justification. That's when we step from the biblical to the traditional, suddenly we find a phrase like 'retain our justification' and then we fall into this weird sphere which leaves us with a God who cares more about physical actions then the position of the heart, in essence a pharisaical (is that a word?) legalism, which many Catholic complain to me about (actually only 3 but still). On the other side, we have of course the free-grace-r's, whom Bonhoeffer dismisses quite effectively as well in his chapter on "Cheap Grace".

I read through the other 2 passages today and here are my thoughts and conclusions - at least for now, which shockingly place me in the sphere of Protestantism, something I haven't seen in a while. It appears I might be reshaking Luther's hand again, before all is said and done.

Ephesians 1-2.
I've been trying REALLY hard not to read my bible in the way I was taught as a reformed baptist, and been actively trying to make my bible sound like Catholicism, I have of course a strange Wesleyan-Orthodox theology, and so reading Ephesians 1 - the Calvinist gospel, yielded an interesting result for me.

Now, I go with the Arminians in that when I read Ephesians 1 and everything about predestination I see St. Paul discussing more of a category, rather than individuals. I think he's discussing the church as a whole, the new covenant group, and that God somehow has pre-destined (for a God outside time and space, I don't see how foreknowledge without predestination is possible) the church. So, it says in v4 that we are chosen to be "Holy and Blameless" meaning sanctification. In these chapters St. Paul contrasts the 'others', the pagans, those ignorant of Christ, and the Elect. Those whom God chose to reveal Christ to. Those in the new covenant. So he sealed them with the Holy Spirit and these are God's people.

He keeps saying though things like 'heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation' and that the people 'believed in him'. Very Protestant (i'm not honestly saying St. Paul was protestant or Catholic, I'm just saying it is points on their side. He seems to be saying that the formula is: 1. you were bad, 2. luckily God predestined you to be holy, 3. (because) you heard the gospel and believed. Paul always talks about faith and grace in these chapters and rejects the notion that the people of God/the church/believers really had anything to do with it. He is saying (in my opinion) that Christ achieved it all.

Riches is another key theme, it is that when Christ came and died he 'drew men unto himself' (Jn 6:44) and that they could become 'in Him' and 'in Christ'. The amazing thing to me is the pattern, it is that CHRIST earned it, NOT us. There can be no merit. The Catholic position is the opposite in some ways, in that they believe in salvation by grace, but that we can still merit our salvation. As St. Thomas Aquinas states:

"Man, by his natural endowments, cannot produce meritorious works
proportionate to everlasting life; and for this a higher force is needed, viz.
the force of grace. And thus without grace man cannot merit everlasting life"
(St. Thomas Aquinas ST I-II:109:5)

However in Ephesians 3:13-14 it says "in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility" (ESV). This is of course Christology, talking about how the blood of Christ brings unity between the believers. But I am always amazed at how throughout the letter the theme is always - Christ achieves eternal life, he distributes grace, and in his crucifixion he has bought all of the elect, they HAVE BEEN saved, in the Past tense. Somehow, mysteriously Christ bought the salvation of St. Thomas Aquinas, over 1000 years before he was born, because he was one of the elect, he 'believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness'.

It says in Chapter 2:4 "even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ - by grace you have been saved" (ESV). It is a reoccuring theme that Christ has made us alive, not us. How do we know those who have been made alive? they have heard the gospel, they believe, they are being made holy. Again St. Paul hammers it out 'by grace you have been saved through faith and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.' It seems clear to me that the case is closed for Paul, salvation is seperate from holiness, from works, from boasting.

Now I know Catholics will argue 2 things here. 1. Works means - works of the law of moses, etc. blah blah N.T. Wright, 2nd temple judaism, blah. I know. I've heard it. However, if the ESV was translated properly (I have no clue if it is), it says 'not your own doing', rather than Works/works of the law of moses. 2. This is talking about 'initial justification' blah blah Lutheran-Catholic joint declaration on Justification blah. I know. I've heard it. However, Paul doesn't seem to understand Trentine Catholicism, in that he says in v.6 "and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ". It goes straight from justification by grace, to glorification, theosis etc. This left my Catholic-side screaming: 'For the love of God Paul, don't you know about meritous good works! don't you know about Purgatory and indulgences! don't you know that you are one of the greatest of the saints, and that if you look at yourself in the mirror and say a hail mary you will earn 1000 years out of purgatory because of the merits of ... well you and the saints'. I realize this is one passage, but still, if you were in Ephesus, this was all the church really knew outside the basic life of Jesus, and the OT. It seemed enough for them.

Good Lord, I seem like a Calvinist. Ephesians 1 will do it to all of us... 'he desireth that all men might be saved' come on Andrew, remember 'sins of the world-not sins of the elect' ... just repeat it over and over again.... There we go, Wesleyan once more. Moving on.

Now the other thing is, I didn't discuss Chp 2:10, in typical Protestant style. "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." But again, this says nothing about Salvation, it only seems to me to be pointing to proof of justification, proof of election, proof that you are in God's covenant. There is my protestant reading of Ephesians 1-2, may God have mercy on my soul, I defy the position of the church.

I was always guilted by Catholics and Orthodox who would say that if this IS the gospel, if this is the message, why did no one preach it throughout church history until Martin Luther in the 16th century. Why? How could the Gospel be lost. That is why I bought into Catholic interpretation, because it is a good argument. However when I honestly look at the text and at the life of Protestant and Catholic churches in my city and elsewhere, I have to embarrassingly say along with Luther that I really do think this is the gospel. I really do think that Christ lived, died, and rose to save us, to make dead people alive, not to empower us to be better, not to gain victory and then make us gain victory ourselves, not to make bad people pull themselves up. I think the fundamental premise is that they can't, ever. And even Christ's victory over death still has each Christian die. And even his victory over sin can't in this life free us from sin. I think it's a noble ideal, that we somehow become like Christ and merit our salvation. However, I can't do it. Me, personally, I can't be that way. Only Christ can I think, I will always be the same selfish fat bastard. But Christ is so much more, and when I give up everything and let Christ work through me, when I admit that I am rubbish, and give up my hope that I can save myself, then God changes me. I have to much faillure to be triumphalistic. My good works were predestined by God, and they don't merit anything other than thanksgiving to Him.

Matthew 25.
If Ephesians 1 was the Calvinist Gospel, then Matthew 25 is the social gospel. Now the idea of Covenant is still something I don't truly understand, but here is my underdeveloped view of it. Belief, faith, baptism, communion, are all things we do to enter into the covenant, but the key is really submission to Christ and trust in his ability to save us. Now the thing I never noticed before is that at the beginning Christ seperates the sheep and the goats, sheep on the right. Sheep on the right. Christ = The Good Shepherd (Ez.34, Jn.10), believers = Sheep, those in his covenant, those who believe, those who are saved. And on the left he seperates the goats, goat typically associated with Satan. As 1 John tells us, all who sin are children of the devil, which means, everyone except Christians and the Blessed Virgin Mary (Gen 3:15 + 1Jn3:8 = sinless Mary) are goats/children of the devil.

Now I was always taught that those who looked after the poor, who did everything 'for the least of these', were the ones who go to Heaven, and the others who neglected the poor, hungry, and naked, were the ones who went to Hell. HOWEVER, it says that to the ones on the right that they served him well, that they did the work of Christ, but they are judged TOGETHER, or Corporately. The Church itself is judged as Righteous on Judgement day, not the individul. Those outside the Church who do not share in it's corporate blessings, those who have not stayed in Christ, are the ones who are judged to go to "eternal punishment".

Thus, my believe is that we must stay "in Christ". I've always said that Predestination doesn't honestly matter, because if we are predestined not to believe in predestination, there's no changing our minds anyway. I am thinking that St. Paul's theme the more and more I read and re-read, is that we must be "In Christ" and those the people who are saved and will be made holy through sanctification, and that it is by grace, through faith, the good gift, salvation, the gift of God.