"You Alone Are The Holy One"

"The work of the Redeemer is a perfect work: nothing can be added to it, and nothing must be taken away from it. It is everlasting in its duration and efficacy; upon this the eye of faith should be invariably fixed, and from thence comfort and support in every state is to be drawn. Christ's blood is a constant propitiation, his righteousness is a perfect covering; to these reader, have daily recourse for cleansing and recommendation before God; by these you may silence all the accusations of Satan, all the clamours of conscience, all the threatenings of the law; for in Christ the believer is complete, and here may he safely rest in his dullest and heaviest moments." - Carl Heinrich von Bogatzky

Excerpts of The Delicious Destruction of Thomism by Paul Ricoeur

""repentance" belongs to the same thematic universe as trnsgression and merit, and it is no accident that it was precisely Judaism that laid emphasis on this concept. For "repentance" signifies that "return" to God, freely chosen, is always open to man; and the example of great and impious men who have "returned" to the Eternal attests that it is always possible for a man to "change his way." This emphasis on repentance is in conformity with the intepretation of "evil inclination" as occasion of sin and not as radical evil. The ethical universe of Pharisaism is already that of Pelagius: no great contrasts, as in Paul, Augustine, and Luther, between radical evil and radical deliverance, but a slow and progressive process of salvation, in which "pardon" is not lacking to "repentance," grace to the good will." - Paul Ricoeur "The Symbolism of Evil" (131)

"justice, although it is extrinsic to a man as far as its origin is concerned, has become something that dwells within him, as far as its operation is concerned; the "future" justice is already imputed to the man who believes; and so the man who is "declared" just is "made" just, really and vitally. Thus there is no ground for opposing the forensic and eschatological sense of justice to its immanent and present sense: for Paul the first is the cause of the second, but the second is the full manifestation of the first; the paradox is that the acme of outwardness is the acme of inwardness, of that inwardness that Paul calls new creature, or liberty. Liberty, considered from the point of view of last things, is not the power of hesitating and choosing between contraries, nor is it effort, good will, responsibility. For St. Paul, as for Hegel, it is being at home with oneself, in the whole, in the recapitulation of Christ." - Paul Ricoeur "The Symbolism of Evil" (148)

"Such is the symbol in the light of which the final experience of fault is perceived as something in the past that one has got beyond. It is because "justification" is the present which dominates the backward look on sin, that the supreme sin consists, in the last resort, in the vain attempt to justify oneself... Justification by faith, then, is what makes manifest the failure of justification by the law, and the failure of the justice of works is what reveals the unity of the entire domain of sin." - Paul Ricoeur "The Symbolism of Evil" (148)

"evil is not nothing; it is not a simple lack, a simple absence of order; it is the power of darkness; it is posited; in this sense it is something to be "taken way": "I am the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world," says the interior Master. Hence, every reduction of evil to a simple lack of being remains outside the symbolism of defilement, which is complete only when defilement has become guilt." - Paul Ricoeur "The Symbolism of Evil" (155)

Love: Why Traditionalism Makes Me Sick

I was just reading a blog post from a Traditionalist Catholic blog about the "horror" of the Archbishop of Canterbury (Rowan Williams) celebrating a eucharistic liturgy in a church in Rome that was the head church of the Dominican order.

Now let me say, I get that Catholicism has declared Anglican ordinations "null and void" in 1896. But I'm also aware what Vatican II said about Anglicanism, and that Pope John Paul II preached in Westminster Abbey and called the Anglican Communion "our beloved sister church". I know canonically it is an ecclesial communion and not truly a church (dominum iesus). But again, the spirit of ecumenism isn't something that should evoke "horror". Maybe my objection is baseless and I should agree with them, but I just despise such outright hatred for fellow Christians (which Anglicans have been concilliarly defined as being, again Vatican II).

The other things I hate about Traditionalists are their neo-Donatist conceptions of sacramental validity. They seem to think that if you are receiving communion at a Mass in English or if someone plays the guitar at your church that somehow Christ can't be present. As if the tongue of the pagan Romans or gregorian chant were what Angels spoke. I get the love for aesthetic beauty, I don't get their strange ideas about Baptisms only being baptisms if the person holds your views on anything from the papal tiara to denying the holocaust. (I'm overreacting here I know).

Furthermore, Traditionalists seem to worship Tradition to the point of idolatry. If someone did something in the past it was therefore valid. The Tridentine Mass is a great example. It was a complete "innovation" of the 16th century, but after it sits around for 400 years, then it's holy. Traditionalists mock Dave Armstrong for using the Bible to defend Catholic beliefs as if teaching the Scriptures is too "protestant" a thing for a respectible Catholic to do.

Finally, completely absent is the love of Christ. Yes it sounds trivial, yes it's argued alot, but at the end of the day, love is supreme (1 Cor 13), it is the greatest.

So may the liberals stop trying to rape Tradition of any holiness, and may the Traditionalists stop destroying charity and ecumenism.

"If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. " - 1 Corinthians 13:1-3

I love this passage, and how St. Paul says that even if you understand all mysteries and knowledge and have all faith *cough sola fide cough* but have not love, you are nothing.

One of my few proud quotes is that 'to be a theologian without love is to be a theolo-gong'... and if you think that's stupid, well... my friend didn't when I told her, so there! (note my Nietzschean logic)

The Last Judgment & The Presbyterians

"And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, the book of life. And the dead were judged according to their works, as recorded in the books. And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and all were judged according to what they had done." -Revelation 20:12,13 (NRSV)

There's a famous painting of the last judgment by Michaelangelo and in it people are being lifted up into Heaven by the saints by their rosaries... and that's kind of what my Church (the Roman Catholic one) teaches. That God makes unjust people just, that they become like Christ and are his children and so are in reality different than the reprobate. I'm obligated to believe that, but I'm sure on that great and terrible day when I face the almighty, obedience to magisterial teaching will not be my first priority.

Christ said that Heaven and Earth will pass away, but his words will not pass away. So I think the words I will speak will be those of the Psalm:

"enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified." - Psalm 143

I was thinking about it in confession yesterday, it seems like such a simple system, but what can a sinner honestly say to the infinite holiness of God? I read this again today, it's one of my favourite sermons:

"O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in: it is a great furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God, whose wrath is provoked and incensed as much against you, as against many of the damned in hell. You hang by a slender thread, with the flames of divine wrath flashing about it, and ready every moment to singe it, and burn it asunder... nothing to lay hold of to save yourself, nothing to keep off the flames of wrath, nothing of your own, nothing that you ever have done, nothing that you can do, to induce God to spare you one moment....but here you are in the land of the living and in the house of God, and have an opportunity to obtain salvation. What would not those poor damned hopeless souls give for one day's opportunity such as you now enjoy! ...
And now you have an extraordinary opportunity, a day wherein Christ has thrown the door of mercy wide open, and stands in calling and crying with a loud voice to poor sinners; a day wherein many are flocking to him, and pressing into the kingdom of God. Many are daily coming from the east, west, north and south; many that were very lately in the same miserable condition that you are in, are now in a happy state, with their hearts filled with love to him who has loved them, and washed them from their sins in his own blood, and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God. How awful is it to be left behind at such a day!" - Jonathan Edwards "Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God" (possibly the best sermon ever written)

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." - Romans 4:5-8

"Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God." - Chapter XI, Westminster Confession of Faith

I may look like a Catholic, but sometimes I feel like a Presbyterian, life is very confusing, who knows where it leads ... in the mean time, I think I'll memorize Romans 4:5 just in case the Presbyterians are right, and I need it in my last defense on judgment day.

I'm not saying that the above quotes are true, I'm just saying personally they strike a chord in me.

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

Why I'm Not Finished My Journey - Constant Conversion

WARNING!!!!! - Personal/spiritual post rather than Polemical/religious post - Ye who enter here abandon all hope

The Humility of a Hero

"Christ’s death redeemed man from sin, but I can make nothing of the theories as to how!"-C.S. Lewis

As I gave my thoughts on the Substitutionary Atonement and how I had to more or less 'give it up' for Catholicism, I realized that one of my favorite Anglicans had also given it up. Borrowing from another blog: "In The Allegory of Love Lewis referred to a poem whose "theology turns on a crudely substitutional view of the Atonement." In Mere Christianity Lewis indicated that he did not accept the substitutionary view of atonement." (http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2000i/townsend2000e.htm)

But I love Lewis' humility. He was clearly an Anglican/Protestant Arminian and accepted Sola Fide/Faith Alone but he tried to find a middle ground for which all Christians could come together on.

For me, I just need to accept that there is much that I haven't decided on and that this indecision is OK.

What I 'know'

When it comes to Theology Proper (Trinity, Who God is, etc) I think all Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox agree. And regarding Ecclesiology and the Sacraments my position is staunchly Roman Catholic, which of course will never allow me to leave the Church, but will also give me a plaguing of constant fear and guilt until I get to have my first confession, communion, and confirmation.

What I don't 'know':

But even if I am settled in my mind on the Catholic view of Conversion and the work of the Holy Ghost, I still can't actually invision it practically. I never know anyone who actually changes. Just sinner saints as Luther would say. I would completely doubt the truth of regeneration if it weren't for the few months of it I experienced in Bible School 3 years ago, and a few of my friends who are doing much better than I. But all of them aren't Roman Catholic, and many aren't even baptized. So how does that fit with my theology? it doesn't seem to. Again I just don't know.

And just ask me about Creation, Theistic Evolution, Young Earth, Old Earth, etc. I have absolutely no idea. I don't think I fit into any category because I think they all have problems. I could write an entire blog on this issue (maybe I'll do that next), but currently I find the Christian narrative and the Scientific narrative at odds, and I don't like picking sides because I -like Galileo- think science will vindicate God if it is true, and I believe all truth is God's truth. So I'm waiting around right now, and utterly confused on the matter.

So it's ironic that I started this blog saying "I'm a Christian looking for a Church" and now I say "I found a Church, but I'm looking for a Christian".... hmm. I wonder what I'll be saying in 2 years from now. I started off a "saved and justified bible-believing Christian" at the beginning, and now I appraise myself a "repentant Roman Catholic candidate in a state of damnation (mortal sin)".

I'm still in the purgatory between Protestant and Catholic and working out all these glitches as it were and confused ideas. But I knew I was in a Catholic mindset when people asked me 'so are you going to trust Jesus or the Church' and I immediately thought "false dicotemy" and primarily, the Church.

Comfort

There are some things that bring me comfort however.

1. Mere Christianity. That I at least gotten over the worst of the family strife over my conversion - C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" is now our household religion. My dad and I when we discuss the faith still speak only with regards to this shared grounds. I also make comments about how there are a great many 'unsaved' people in the Catholic Church and him and I agree on it. (though we use slightly different criteria). And I must say that I've never departed the teaching I received as a child that the Lord looks at the heart first, and so we view in my family now, "true Christianity" not as sola fide or sola ecclesia but as a living trust in Jesus. Pope Benedict XVI calls this the "constant call to conversion" that each Christian has. And while I might not be 'sacramentally' in a state of grace, God knows - I am sure - that my heart is in the right place. And I think that's more important than anything.

2. Kyrie Eliesen. That God is merciful - two of my favourite verses in the bible are: "The sacrifice acceptable to God, is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise" (Ps 51.17) - a verse I emphasize when I talk to Muslims and Jews about salvation. And Jesus' promise "anyone who comes to me I will never drive away" (Jn 6:37). I also have taken comfort in the words of St. Gregory Nazianzen "God's joy in giving is greater than our joy in receiving".

3. Hope. While I cynically doubt I will ever be regenerate and suffer from constant feelings of guilt and inadequacy, I still take comfort in hope, which St. Paul says "will not disappoint" (Rom 5:5). President Obama -who ever Christian seems to hate- wrote a book called "The Audacity of Hope". I read some of it, and regardless of political views here, I just wanted to use the title for something. As Christians we do have the Audacity to hope. It is audacious because all signs point to despair. Hope is probably my favourite thing in the world, it's one of those words that for me has special meaning. It reminds me of Tolkien and his writing for Hope against despair. It's like the word repentance (which for many people is bad) which for me is a beautiful word. And so I try to pray each day for the Gift of the Holy Ghost which Jesus says the Father will give to us if we only ask, and maybe I'm already receiving it without knowing, but right now I have the audacity to hope for the zoe the supernatural and indwelling life of Christ, which I long for above all else.

Conclusion:

I'm still on the Journey, I'm not finished, and I need to spend some time enjoying the mystery of God, and I find it appropriate to quote the words of C.S. Lewis again:

"Relying on God has to begin all over again every day as if nothing had yet been done..."

Thus begins another day.

New Pauline Perspective - the only hope for a unified Church

"The more we consider Paul's writing in this context the less we see the acute psychological dilemma characteristic of the Augustinian-Lutheran interpretation as a whole. Krister Stendahl masterfully explores this in his ground-breaking essay "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West." Paul was certainly aware of his own shortcomings, but, Stendahl asks, "does he ever intimate that he is aware of any sins of his own which would trouble his conscience? It is actually easier to find statements to the contrary. The tone in Acts 23:1, 'Brethren, I have lived before God in all good conscience up to this day' (cf. 24:16), prevails also throughout his letters."8 Far from being "simultaneously a sinner and a saint" (simul iustus et peccator), Paul testifies of his clear conscience: "Indeed, this is our boast, the testimony of our conscience: we have behaved in the world with frankness and godly sincerity" (2 Cor. 1:12a). He was aware that he had not yet "arrived" (Phil. 3:12-14), that he still struggled with the flesh, yet he was confident of the value of his performance (1 Cor. 9:27). He looked forward to a day when "all of us must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive recompense for what has been done in the body, whether good or evil" (2 Cor. 5:10), and he anticipated a favorable verdict (v. 11). He acknowledged that his clear conscience did not necessarily ensure this verdict (1 Cor. 4:4), but he was confident nevertheless. These are hardly the convictions of someone who intends to rest entirely on the merits of an alien righteousness imputed to his or her account.

It may be countered that Paul considered himself the least of the apostles (1 Cor. 15:9a; cp. Eph. 3:8) and in fact chief of sinners (cp. 1 Tim. 1:15). But this is not the paradigmatic expression of humility and contrition, as if every Christian should regard herself more sinful than the next. Paul's chief sin was that he had violently persecuted the church (1 Cor. 15:9b; cp. 1 Tim. 1:13-16). This confession is obviously concrete and historical -- not subjective, existential, and universally comparable to every person's experience. At any rate Paul had put all of that behind him and made up for his sordid past (1 Cor. 15:10); he did not languish in guilt. From what we know of his extant writings, he did not seem to experience the unrelenting introspection which became so characteristic of Western humankind after Augustine. Nor, many historians agree, could he have in his time and culture." - http://www.thepaulpage.com/Summary.html

Praise God that finally someone has found the proper 1st century understanding of St. Paul. The NPP understanding of Romans is probably the reason I could become a Roman Catholic at all. It shows that the Catholic understanding of Salvation is a biblical option and generally discredits the idea of alien imputed righteousness.

With these Protestants jumping ship on Sola Fide in it's traditional understanding, and the emerging church investigating real tradition (icons, patristics, etc), maybe the Reformation could finally end. Well, it will never end of completely of course... the Calvinists would never give up, God himself could tell them they're wrong and they'd probably call him a heretic and tell him to read the institutes again. But to the rest of Protestantism, go out and buy N.T. Wright, Sanders, and Dunn.

Actually I'm far too optimistic, nowadays being Protestant is about 'not worshipping Mary', using the word 'Eucharist', having 'bishops' or having to kneel at church, it's no longer the issue of 'immediate Justification by Faith ALONE imputed' as opposed to 'Justification by Faith and the work of the Holy Spirit infused'. But if Luther could've read N.T. Wright, maybe the church would be one again...

Observations In The Church of Rome (Pt.3) - "Unam Sanctum?"

Ok so I totally cheated about the last post in that John Wesley basically wrote it. But this one will again be actual observations. And I know I threw in that arbitrary one on American History, but whatever, I should be writing an essay right now anyway.

OK. So, I was attracted to Catholicism at first because it seemed perfectly united in everything, the Catechism spelled out almost every detail, so I figured that would be the case. Well... there's one observation that might not be shocking to many, but has become a pro and a con of Rome. That is the fact that nearly no one is unified. ... The only people who know doctrine are SSPX who are pretty much renegades now, despite what our wonderful German Shepherd (papa bene) is trying to do with them. But the vast majority of Catholics hold fairly divergent views. Now this isn't really a criticism of Catholicism as much as it was just a correction to my understanding of Catholicism. For example, one of the critiques a presbyterian friend who I shall only refer to as Jay Bennett had with Catholicism is that it was Latitudinarian in it's definition of doctrine. My first thought was: What the hell does Geography have to do with this?!. But then he explained that the Church has for th most part merely denounced heretical ideas on far ends of the spectrum. So they've taught that legalism is wrong (a LONG time ago) and they've taught that antinomianism is wrong (daily), and we rest in between....ok that was a really bad example. Um. Here we go, this is better: They've taught in Unam Sanctum that No one outside the Church can be saved, and then they've taught in Vatican 2 that maybe people from non-Christian religions can even be saved. Wow that actually just sounded more like a contradiction than a broad scope, but I'm not worried, there's probably canon lawyers and theologians who've found a loop hole for that somewhere. Anyway, I guess my memory is foggy this morning but the basic point of this now ridiculously long paragraph was that many people can hold many views, and that Catholic thinking isn't monolithic.

My other Presbyterian friend said in a facebook message once that Rome is much divided with competing views like Molinism and Augustinianism and thus was not really united. Well to my relief and despair no one in Catholicism actually discusses Justification, BUT if they did, i'm sure none of them would know what either term meant. But I must say that Trent, the destruction of the Jansenists, etc, have pretty much killed the Augustinian tradition...Jesuits I'm looking at you....gah molinism, and I thought Arminianism was bad.


I was also talking to a Catholic friend I have who studies theology and is doing a great amount of work on Martin Luther. I started to wonder how a Catholic could view Martin Luther, as I still really admire him, and she said that she loved him and thought he was a great reformer for the Church. And I thought I was angry at the Jesuits, GAH POPE LEO!! why did you have to excommunicate him. Let me explain, I have a history professor who does his work in Luther's early writings and doctrine and the early Lutheran movement, and he told me alot. His argument was that Luther's entire theology was based on his reading of St. Augustine's doctrine of "Sola Gratia" and that he just saw grace as divine favour rather than a substance metaphysically distributed by the Church/by God/by Mary (mediatrix of all graces)...it's confusing there's alot of slashes. ... Anyway that might be true, I've read a very small portion of Luther's early writings and many of them according to these people I talked to could've got a nihil obstat. Apparently it was only later in his life, after he'd been excommunicated that he started to teach sola fide and view himself as an eschatological figure from Revelation, and write entire books cursing Jews, etc...that's 'crazy' Luther, but I'd like 'devout' Luther.

Anyway, the point of all of this is that, you are actually free to hold many views as a Catholic (within the confines of Tradition's definitions ie. the Catechism). Like Catholics quoting Luther, like the continued existence of Hans Kung (who I'm sure the Vatican has tried to assassinate), like the Donut Man, there is diversity. The best illustration of this is a glance at Pope Benedict's view on Purgatory and Karl Rahner's view on Purgatory and the Medieval view of Purgatory. I figure give it another 50 years and Purgatory will be chisled down to a few seconds. stoked, I guess i won't need that plenary indulgence.

I'm not trying to be cynical or blasphemous I just think there is so many more important things that these issues now that I sometimes make light of them. I will spend a year becoming a Roman Catholic, but I will spend my life becoming a Christian, that is, becoming like Christ. And in the words of St. Paul/God the Holy Spirit,

"One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat...Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way...For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." -Romans 14

Jansenism Pt. 2 and Emphasis in Theology

Emphasis is important in theology. A church can believe in a doctrine but not emphasize it over a period of time. An example is 'sola gratia' - grace alone. Dr. R.C. Sproul is a very honest Reformed theologian and he says in his book "Faith Alone" that the Catholic Church has always fought to maintain that salvation is by the grace of God alone (though obviously not by faith alone, hence the Reformation). Louis Bouyer writes that if the Church focussed more on Grace Alone during the time of the Reformation, it is probable that the issues would have been settled. This is quite a claim of course, and easily debatable, but the general principle is that emphasis matters.



Jansenism is intriguing to me because I like it's emphasis, in only a few ways does it contradict Church teaching (possibly teaching limited atonement, and irresistible grace), but it places great emphasis on Election and the sovereign grace of God and faith in the work of Christ. It never denies that works justify or the nature of the communion or anything else like that (from the little of what I've read), but it does emphasize what I think at least is the 'best' of Protestantism and Catholicism.



Jansen himself wrote that if his doctrines were offensive to the Church that they should of course be disposed of and that he wished to be faithful to the Church, and I believe that is the point. The point is that emphasis needs to be reformed at times or shifted depending on the situation. Baptists for example believe in an eternally Hell for all believers which they will be conscious during, but I've never heard a sermon on it, because it's just alluded to briefly or like an 'unwritten law' that it exists. Thus if their churches start to doubt Hell, they should emphasize it.



Thus while I am not a Jansenist because it has been declared heretical, I definately agree with the emphasis and that the good parts of it's theology should be emphasized more. I don't know why people think Election is such a horrific doctrine, St. Paul, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and alot of others are in agreement that it is a beautiful thing. Active reprobation...is another story.

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

Constructing a Systematic Theology

I've been trying to figure out this argument to build a Protestant worldview against the attacks of Catholicism. Here is the outline of it:

1st line of Argument
1. The Gospel According to St. Matthew is a historically reliable source, it teaches at least that a Rabbi named Jesus existed and chronicles his teachings.
2. The Gospel of Matthew says in Chapter 28 that Jesus commanded his Disciples to teach everything he commanded them.
3. Peter, one of the disciples writes in 2 Pet 1:21 that Scripture is inspired, and that Paul's letters are scripture.
4. Paul writes to Timothy in 2 Tim 3:16 that the scriptures contain all things necessary for salvation and to perfect the man of God.
5. Paul - now seen as speaking the words of God, teaches Sola Fide
6. If Sola Fide is true then it is the main message of the gospel
7. If Gal 1:8 is true, any other gospel is accursed
8. Thus Protestantism is true and other gospels are accursed.

2nd line of Argument
1. Christ regarded the Old Testament as true, every book he quotes in the gospels can be seen to have Authority, leaving out only Ecclesiastes, Ruth, and other not quite necessary books.
2. Christ when tempted responded with 'it is written' leading us in the example that the bible has authority and is true.
3. Christ speaks of his teachings being transmitted to his disciples, his disciples write scripture.
4. Scripture teaches Sola Fide.

This doesn't give us 66 books of the bible as inerrant, BUT it does give us the Pauline Literature as the Word of God, from which I am confident, Sola Fide can be proven, and thus church history is irrelevant, and Protestantism can stand on a foundation. And then I get to be comfortable and believe what my parents want me to believe.

Faith Alone

I started reading R.C. Sproul's book "by faith alone" today. I really believe the bible teaches Sola Fide, it is the only gospel I can hope in, because I'm a totally depraved sinner, and only the blood of Christ will save me.

A famous Protestant once said that this is the doctrine on which the church stands or falls, the doctrine that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. Now I can't find that doctrine anywhere in church history before Luther (maybe a bit in St. Augustine), but as I re-read Romans I cannot possibly read a Catholic interpretation into it, no matter how hard I've tried. Ultimately these are just some of the verses that point to justification by faith alone, and yes I've read James 2:24, but honestly in light of all the other verses that go against it, I am obligated to believe either 1) St. James was wrong, or 2) that Calvin's interpretation of it was right, namely that the KIND of faith that bears no works, is NOT saving faith, and thus it alone cannot save a man. As Melancthon reminds us faith alone justifies, but the faith that justifies is never alone.

John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."
Rom. 3:22, "even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction."
Rom. 3:24, "being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;"
Rom. 3:26, "for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."
Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."
Rom. 4:3, "For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."
Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"
Rom. 4:11, "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,"
Rom. 4:16, "Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all."
Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"
Rom. 5:9, "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him."
Rom. 9:30, "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith."
Rom. 9:33, "just as it is written, “Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”
Rom. 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."
Rom. 10:9-10, "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; 10 for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."
Rom. 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."
Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."
Gal. 2:21, “I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”
Gal.3:5-6, "Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 6Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."
Gal. 3:8, "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "All the nations shall be blessed in you."
Gal. 3:14, "in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith."
Gal. 3:22, "But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe."
Gal. 3:24, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith."
Eph. 1:13, "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise."
Eph. 2:8, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God."
Phil. 3:9, "and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith."
1 Tim. 1:16, "And yet for this reason I found mercy, in order that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience, as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life."

Sproul argues in his book that IF the gospel is justification by faith alone, then it is an essential doctrine and any church, meaning a church that doesn't teach this doctrine cannot be truly Christian. Of course the debate is all in the IF, but I think I've finally come back to this doctrine of the Reformation. And as Luther once prayed in a courtroom in Worms... may God help me.

Ugh...God help me. (Catholic v. Protestant)... again

Ecclesiology:
"But since it would take too long to set out here the successions of all the churches, we shall turn to that great, ancient and universally known church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul, and we shall show that the tradition it has received of the apostles and the faith that it preaches to men has come down to our time through the regular succession of its bishops; and thus we shall confute all those who, in whatever way, whether by self-complacency, vainglory, blindness or error, enter into unauthorized assemblies. For it is with this Roman church, by reason of its more powerful pre-eminence that every other church, that is to say all the faithful everywhere, ought to agree, inasmuch as in this church the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those who come from everywhere." St. Irenaeus ("Against All Heresies," c. 180 A.D.)

"there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters. What I mean is that each of you says, ‘I belong to Paul’, or ‘I belong to Apollos’, or ‘I belong to Cephas (Peter)’, or ‘I belong to Christ.’ Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" - St. Paul (1 Corinthians 1:10-13, c.60 AD)

Justification:
"If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins... let him be anathema" - (Catholic Council of Trent c. 1550 AD)

"it is by God’s will that we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands day after day at his service, offering again and again the same sacrifices that can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, ‘he sat down at the right hand of God’, and since then has been waiting ‘until his enemies would be made a footstool for his feet.’ For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified." - St. Paul? Barnabas? Priscilla? (Hebrews 10:10-14 (c. 95 AD)

I have spent all of my spare time and energy in this Catholic-Protestant debate, I've lost sleep and friends and a possible future career. I am so tired. This is just a sample of what I deal with. I've discovered something strange. No matter how hard I try to read Church History, it is overwhelmingly 'Catholic', it supports the papacy and the historic episcopate (bishops), etc. BUT, No matter how hard I try to read Catholicism into the Scriptures, I find they are overwhelmingly Lutheran/Protestant.

So I'm left with this horrific situation, either turn my back on all of Church History and Sacred Tradition, including those which chose the canon of scripture, OR, to turn my back on the Sacred Word of God, eternal immutable, inspired and authoritative. The problem is that both groups claim they can read both scripture and tradition with a clear conscience, well I can't. I can't read the Council of Nicea and not be Catholic, and I can't read Romans and not be Protestant.

The other problem is that both Tradition and Scripture hold Anathemas for those who reject them. Both claiming to be from God. So St. Paul writes in Galatians 1:8 that if anyone believes a different gospel than the one he taught, they are damned, and St. Irenaeus writes if anyone divides the church or is out of communion with Rome, they are anathema.

Now Protestants say obviously the church screwed up and was led into heresy, and Catholics say obviously my interpretation of scripture is wrong. I've tried so hard to read the New Testament as a Catholic, but short of removing Romans, Galatians, Corinthians and Hebrews, I could not do it. Luther - no matter how late he came in church history - I believe was correct in his interpretation of imputed righteousness and sola fide. Catholics will laugh and say 'so the gospel itself, the central message of the church was unknown to it for nearly 16 centuries?!', whilst Protestants must embarrassingly say 'yes'. Catholics must embarrassingly say that even though the scriptures clearly show this, they are wrong and that really Scripture is only a part of Tradition and can't be used against it.

And so my soul is looking like Ireland as it always is.

It is also two different conceptions of God. In Lutheranism/Anglicanism God has peace with humanity, his wrath has been satisfied, he loves everyone, and if they merely believe, they will be saved and immediately after death be in the presence of God. In Catholicism God is like 'Two-Face' in Batman, if you commit a mortal sin the gun is to your head, but if you go through the proper cleansing ritual, then suddenly he loves you again. And even if you do everything right your whole life, you still get burned (purgatory). In Luther salvation is the gift of God, in Trent it is the temporary chance of God.

Yesterday I watched Rob Bell's "The Gods Aren't Angry", and it was really good. But it was the epitome of Luther, he argues well that if this idea -of God only loving us because we offer him something - is true, then there's no more point to Christianity than Judaism or Paganism for that matter, just another group of humans, trying to appease the angry gods. So does God love me? or does he burn with righteous anger towards me because I am a heretic who actively divides his bride the church, with mortal sins on my soul which will earn me eternal damnation?....ugh, I'm so tired of this.

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.

The Last Temptation of Canterbury

I was thinking about alot recently. I was thinking about my future. I have planned for the last year to be in the ministry. However as anyone who pays attention to my blog has noticed I came to the conclusion that I believed Apostolic Succession to be essential and that I no longer accepted Sola Fide, or Sola Scriptura. Thus I decided that I would join the Roman Catholic Church. No other denominations have really tempted me since my decision, I seem fairly hopeful in my soon to be new faith. I theologically have changed alot and I'm sure I will become more Catholic but at the same time right now I am probably about a High Anglican with Roman Justification and Authority views, with a small but growing reverance for St. Mary.

However the fact that I desire to have a family and don't feel strongly called to the specifically Catholic priesthood means that I can have no future in ministry. I have found that however there still exists one temptation left to me. Anglicanism. I've written so much on Anglicanism on the blog that I don't feel like repeating all of it, but today I was reading Rowan Williams again - the Archbishop of Canterbury and thought about how awesome he is. He is very much an Anglo-Catholic, and basically everything he says I agree with. He seems to be a very intelligent Christian, and the Anglican model of Scripture, Tradition, and Logic is very appealing to me. I love the versatility of the church even if it includes heretical positions (like the whole Gay issue).
It is hard to stick to your convictions when your dream is to be a minister. So today my temptation among others was to go Anglican. My parents said that if I went to any non-Catholic school they would pay for it. That's tempting again. I was just thinking, wow I could move to South Carolina near Hannah and go to an Episcopalian school and study theology. I know lots of the psycho priests and bishops the Anglicans have in their church and am sure I could become an Anglican/Episcopalian Priest and still profess Catholicism mostly and stay gainfully employed and married as well.

However in my heart I know I'd always have problems. I don't think I could be in communion with Actively Homosexual Ministers of Christ - though this has only happened once it seems an inevitability. I don't know if I could work with 'brothers' who do not believe in the divinity of Christ, or the physical resurrection, or the virgin birth.

I knew that (at least today and for the last month) Roman Catholicism is the most defensible position for me, it makes the most sense and if I left it, I would leave the certain authority in the historic faith. If I was an Anglican I couldn't tell someone they were 'wrong' to not believe in the virgin birth. That's also why Dr. Rowan Williams is so tempting (in an entirely non-sexual way) because he believes the orthodox and historic Christian faith. He opposes heretical positions, but he is incredibly loving towards people of other faiths.

The problem again being that the English Government chooses the Archbishop of Canterbury. Caesar in essence is wed to the church. The Roman Pontiff's election (though corrupted throughout history) is organized by the college of cardinals, bishops the succesors of the apostles.
I'm 99% sure I'm still becoming a Roman Catholic as I've received so much grief, pain, and rejection already for it, and the fact that I believe it makes me think I'll become Catholic. However even if/when I do, I will always respect Dr. Rowan Williams and other Anglicans like C.S. Lewis. Williams has a way to answer these questions with such grace and truth it reminds me of what Jesus would be like in a Q & A session. He is one of my spiritual fathers, no matter what church I join.

All this to say that I am immensely tempted with tons of complications on all sides. Hmm maybe I could become a Catholic, and then go to an Episcopal seminary and then figure something out after that. I dunno. I guess prayer is all that will help. In the end I have to be intellectually honest and can't make decisions about my deepest beliefs based on money making etc. But I guess it is a factor.

hmm. at least this is my days greatest problem. I could be starving in some poor country somewhere in the southern hemisphere.

St. Augustine Refutes Faith Alone

In all of my investigation into Catholicism I don't know if I can believe in Sola Fide or Justification by Faith Alone anymore. It is a constant battle, and Martin Luther said that his religion would be based on Scriptures AND Augustine, so look what St. Augustine says:

"On Grace and Freewill" Ch.18
"Unintelligent persons, however, with regard to the apostle's statement: "We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law," (Rom 3:28) have thought him to mean that faith suffices to a man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works. Impossible is it that such a character should be deemed "a vessel of election" by the apostle, who, after declaring that " in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision," (Gal 5:6) adds at once, "but faith which works by love." It is such faith which severs God's faithful from unclean demons,—for even these "believe and tremble," (Jms 2:19) as the Apostle James says; but they do not do well. Therefore they possess not the faith by which the just man lives,—the faith which works by love in such wise, that God recompenses it according to its works with eternal life. But inasmuch as we have even our good works from God, from whom likewise comes our faith and our love, therefore the selfsame great teacher of the Gentiles has designated "eternal life" itself as His gracious "gift." (Rom 6:23) "

This is written in 426-427 AD so it is important to understand that this is a historic position of the church. Just some food for thought.