"Our earthly liturgies must be celebrations full of beauty and power: Feasts of the Father who created us—that is why the gifts of the earth play such a great part: the bread, the wine, oil and light, incense, sacred music, and splendid colors. Feasts of the Son who redeemed us—that is why we rejoice in our liberation, breathe deeply in listening to the Word, and are strengthened in eating the Eucharistic Gifts. Feasts of the Holy Spirit who lives in us—that is why there is a wealth of consolation, knowledge, courage, strength, and blessing that flows from these sacred assemblies." unknown source possibly YOUCAT Mal.1.11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith theLord of hosts.

Sunday, May 26, 2013

romans 9

from comment 69 here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/04/thought-experiment-for-monergists/

There are several terms in the mix. Salvation. Election. Justification. Sanctification. Eternal life. We don’t have to completely agree right away on how these are all related, but I at least want to clarify how I understand some of this.
That bit in Romans 9 is addressing *election* in particular, not every aspect of salvation. You write that “God chooses us and then we have eternal life.” But that is not the whole story. Salvation also includes things like justification and sanctification, and the obedience of faith.
In particular, as we have seen (Romans 6 and Galatians 6), sanctification is a condition for receiving eternal life. Even if one maintains that justification and sanctification are seperate gifts, one still has to account for the biblical data concerning the telos of sanctification / good works, and that data indicates that these are not only evidence of salvation (i.e. justification and eternal life), nor only expressions of gratitude for these other gifts, but stand in a cause-effect relation to the gifts of eternal life and justification.”He who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.”
Part of the disconnect in the conversation might be due to different ways of thinking about salvation. When you use the word, you seem to refer to a once-for-all event, either a timeless decree of individual election, or a moment of faith, or both. Thus, receiving eternal life, being justified, can only refer to a past event in a Christian’s life. I am referring to salvation as a process. Salvation has a past, a present, and a future. We can see, for example, that Paul refers to both “eternal life” and “justification” as rewards to be received in the future, as the culmination of sanctification, as well as conditions that obtain in the present, for those who are united to Christ by living faith.
We seem to have agreed that sanctification involves the will of man, cooperating with divine grace. But since Sacred Scripture also teaches that sanctification is an integral aspect of salvation upon which future salvific gifts are conditioned, it is incorrect to say that salvation is not somehow dependent on man. I know that it sounds strange to Reformed ears, but synergism in salvation seems to be the biblical perspective. This is fully compatible with Romans 9:14-18, since the antecedent of “it” in that passage is not “the whole of salvation” but God’s election of Jacob / Israel.

and comment 82:

Romans 9 is covenantal. It is not a discussion on the mechanics of individual salvation but about nations and God’s sovereign activity in regard to the gospel. Look at Malachi 1 which Romans 9 cites, Jacob and Esau are nations. God turns his own command in Deut. 21:15-17 on its head with Jacob and Esau, and Paul is answering the natural question “is there unrighteousnes with God?” because of this. These chapters in Romans are adressing Israel’s fall and the acceptance of the gentiles not individual election to heaven or hell.

see also;  http://www.reasonablefaith.org/molinism-and-divine-election

salvation/ different aspects concerning it

from comment 69 here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/04/thought-experiment-for-monergists/

There are several terms in the mix. Salvation. Election. Justification. Sanctification. Eternal life. We don’t have to completely agree right away on how these are all related, but I at least want to clarify how I understand some of this.
That bit in Romans 9 is addressing *election* in particular, not every aspect of salvation. You write that “God chooses us and then we have eternal life.” But that is not the whole story. Salvation also includes things like justification and sanctification, and the obedience of faith.
In particular, as we have seen (Romans 6 and Galatians 6), sanctification is a condition for receiving eternal life. Even if one maintains that justification and sanctification are seperate gifts, one still has to account for the biblical data concerning the telos of sanctification / good works, and that data indicates that these are not only evidence of salvation (i.e. justification and eternal life), nor only expressions of gratitude for these other gifts, but stand in a cause-effect relation to the gifts of eternal life and justification.”He who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.”
Part of the disconnect in the conversation might be due to different ways of thinking about salvation. When you use the word, you seem to refer to a once-for-all event, either a timeless decree of individual election, or a moment of faith, or both. Thus, receiving eternal life, being justified, can only refer to a past event in a Christian’s life. I am referring to salvation as a process. Salvation has a past, a present, and a future. We can see, for example, that Paul refers to both “eternal life” and “justification” as rewards to be received in the future, as the culmination of sanctification, as well as conditions that obtain in the present, for those who are united to Christ by living faith.
We seem to have agreed that sanctification involves the will of man, cooperating with divine grace. But since Sacred Scripture also teaches that sanctification is an integral aspect of salvation upon which future salvific gifts are conditioned, it is incorrect to say that salvation is not somehow dependent on man. I know that it sounds strange to Reformed ears, but synergism in salvation seems to be the biblical perspective. This is fully compatible with Romans 9:14-18, since the antecedent of “it” in that passage is not “the whole of salvation” but God’s election of Jacob / Israel.

and comment 72

There is no way we can save ourselves. We are completely incapable. It is Christ “in us” the hope of glory. However, this hope doesn’t deprive us of the unique requisite for a relationship of love; namely free response. We must respond to the gift of Christ. In doing so, we must do good works, “work out our own salvation with fear in trembling”–not to save ourselves or anything even close–but rather to participate in a real way in the work of Christ in us.
When God rewards our merits, He crowns His own merit. Why? Because He purchased you and I, not to simply add us to the roll but to incorporate us into himself that we might become sons and daughters of God. This incorporation, divination, deification is the point of salvation. Our responding to the the gift of Christ in good works is “faith” in Christ in us. How can we demonstrate that we believe that He is in us and that one day “we shall be like Him because we will see Him as He is”? We show God that we believe by acting on our faith–faith working through agape. This is living and saving faith (versus dead and lifeless faith) and God takes those agape animated works (the cause of which is His Spirit) and rewards those with eternal life.
That is why in the parable of the talents, the man who does not use what he is given (grace) will have what he has taken from him and be thrown “into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth”.
The pivotal moment for my understanding of salvation came just before I left seminary when I began to think carefully about the teaching of St. John the Beloved Apostle to the effect that eternal life is knowing God (John 17:3) and knowing God consists not only of having faith, but also of abiding in love through keeping the commandments of Christ (1 John 3:10-24). For St. John, abiding in eternal life is incompatible with abiding in death, but this does not entail that everyone who abides in eternal life is sinless; there is sin unto death (“mortal sin”) and sin not unto death (1 John 5:16-17). Only the former extinguishes spiritual life. Even in cases where a baptized Christian commits sin unto death, the free gift of forgiveness, cleansing, and reconciliation is available through confession (1 John 1:9). Following St. John from his Gospel to First Epistle and back again, it seemed to me that abiding in eternal life and abiding in death by committing and refusing to repent of mortal sin are mutually exclusive because eternal life itself is not merely an infinite duration of conscious existence (even the damned have that), nor is it merely a promise about the future; rather, eternal life is a particular kind of life given and received as a free gift here and now. It is a participation in the very life of God, who is love; hence, to have eternal life is to abide in love, which both fulfills the law (1 John 4:7-21; Romans 13:8-10) and triumphs over death and darkness (1 John 1:1-7; 2:1-11; 4:4-21).
Understanding eternal life as a free gift the nature of which is to know God by abiding in love caused me to reassess several of the assumptions that had always informed my doctrine of salvation, including the sharp contrasts that I had drawn between a free gift and a way of life, justification and sanctification, forgiveness and cleansing, and God’s grace and man’s participation in that grace. Now, I began to understand these things as being involved one in the other, as various facets of the same gift. Understanding eternal life as a way of life also helped me better appreciate those parts of the Gospel of John, such as the “bread of life” discourse in John 6 and the “fruit and vine” analogy in John 15, in which our life in Christ is portrayed in sacramental and participatory terms rather than something abstract and static. Thus, several years before I entered the Catholic Church, I came to embrace in a general way an understanding of salvation which has been held by Catholic and Orthodox believers throughout the Christian centuries, which understanding has sometimes been described as “covenantal and sacramental realism.”
From the standpoint of covenantal and sacramental realism, the gift of salvation is not characterized by or based upon a purely legal arrangement in which “the righteousness of God” is an extrinsic and alien quality that is merely imputed to those who believe; rather, the gift of salvation is fundamentally a familial covenant relationship in which those who are by nature sinners and strangers to the covenant of promise are by grace through faith forgiven, cleansed, and made sons of God who really participate in their Father’s righteousness. Through faith in Christ, by the grace of God given in the sacraments, sinners truly become what God declares them to be.  This great salvation flows directly from and is realized in union with Christ himself, the only-begotten Son and divine Word of God, who was born and lived among us, self-sacrificially died on the Cross for our sins, was raised from the dead for our justification, ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. Those who believe in Christ are delivered from the dominion of death and darkness into the realm of life and light (John 3:16-21); having the love of God poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5), we are made partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4), living members of Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:1-10), and fellow citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven (Ephesians 2:11-22).

If you read the Greek, the word in Romans 6:23 is χάρισμα, which means gift. There is no word which means ‘free’ in the Greek text of Romans 6:23. Eternal life is the gift of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. And union with Christ requires saying yes to Christ and no to self and to the world. Living faith is not mere internal trust; it includes agape, which is love for God above all other things. The one who claims to have living faith, but does not love God above all things, is deceived. Agape, by its very nature, includes denial of self, flesh and the world. So the person who does not deny himself, flesh and the world, does not have agape, and hence does not have living faith, and hence is not justified and does not have eternal life. The denial of self, flesh, and world is in this way an intrinsic part of the cost of attaining eternal life. This is why there is no justification without repentance, for those who have attained the age of reason. Your notion that eternal life is absolutely free would make repentance entirely optional.

 salvation by faith
“. This was at the very heart of Paul’s debate with the Pharisees: the issue of whether salvation is attained by faith or by the works of the law. Paul rejects the attitude of those who would consider themselves justified before God on the basis of their own works. Such people, even when they obey the commandments and do good works, are centred on themselves; they fail to realize that goodness comes from God. Those who live this way, who want to be the source of their own righteousness, find that the latter is soon depleted and that they are unable even to keep the law. They become closed in on themselves and isolated from the Lord and from others; their lives become futile and their works barren, like a tree far from water. "

this is from Catholic clips


".... that the Catholic Church condemned the opinion that justification consists in the sole imputation of Christ’s merits. This is true. Trent taught that justification is by infusion of grace and charity and that once received, the increase in justification includes the believer’s actual participation in the merits of Christ. But this does not entail that Christ’s merits are not sufficient for salvation (quite the opposite). It appears that Horton is assuming a “zero-sum” understanding of merits, such that the works done by persons in a state of grace are “added to” the merits of Christ, thus “equaling” enough merits to be saved. But Catholic soteriology does not employee a zero-sum model of merit; rather, our merits spring from our participation in the life of Christ, even as the fruit of the branches depends upon their union with the vine. [1]"

and from the footnote here is a partial quote:

Justification, for St. Augustine and the Fathers is not by extra nos imputation, but by the infusion of grace and agape, which infusion is the writing of the law on the heart. God, who is the Truth, counts us righteous only if we are, by this supernatural gift of grace and agape poured out into our hearts, truly righteous within, and thus have “real righteousness.” This understanding of justification as the infusion of grace and agape into the heart is what we find throughout the Fathers. It is also what we find in Scripture; see “Does the Bible Teach Sola Fide?

and from here


and found here  http://pontifications.wordpress.com/justification/  found in the Sept 13 section

 “The grace of Christ,” the Catholic Catechism tells us, “is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is thes anctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification.” At no point, according to the Catholic Church, can justification be understood as sinful man pulling himself up by his bootstraps; nor can it be understood as man earning his way into heaven by his good works; nor can it even be understood as a team effort, with God doing his part (perhaps a big part) and man doing his part (perhaps just a little bitty part). The work of justification is God’s work. God justifies man by graciously incorporating him through Baptism into his Trinitarian life and making him a new creation by the Holy Spirit.

and

“Nothing could bring out more clearly,” comments Louis Bouyer on the above passage, “that Catholic doctrine itself, as defined at Trent, does not admit salvation by faith andworks, if by that is meant works that are not themselves the product of saving grace received by faith” (The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism [1956], p. 71). Thus the Council of Trent reaffirmed the sola gratia as the very heart of Catholic soteriology. 

and from here http://pontifications.wordpress.com/justification-ii/


In 1986 the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission released a common statement on justification: Salvation and the Church. The document witnesses to the conviction of the commission members that an authentic convergence of belief between Anglicans and Catholics is indeed possible on the question of justification. They key to this convergence is the mutual recognition of the effective and recreative power of the justifying word:
Justification and sanctification are two aspects of the same divine act (1 Cor 6:11). This does not mean that justification is a reward for faith or works: rather, when God promises the removal of our condemnation and gives us a new standing before him, this justification is indissolubly linked with his sanctifying recreation of us in grace. This transformation is being worked out in the course of our pilgrimage, despite the imperfections and ambiguities of our lives. God’s grace effects what he declares: his creative word imparts what it imputes. By pronouncing us righteous, God also makes us righteous. He imparts a righteousness which is his and becomes ours. (par 15)



 Ah, but is Paul speaking about a faith that includes the believer in the work of Christ and therefore brings justification at some point? Or is Paul telling those in the Body that they were already saved through faith alone by grace alone?
If you think think that the Catholic doctrine is that justification is at some later point in the process of sanctification, and subsequent to our baptism, then you have misunderstood the Catholic doctrine. According to Catholic doctrine, we are justified at baptism, through which we received the gift of living faith. That’s the gift St. Paul is speaking of in Eph 2:8.
Not to get pedantic but the tense of τοῦτο or ‘this’ in v. 8 does not allow for it to indicate just the word ‘faith’ but speaks to the entire clause of being saved by grace through faith.
Demonstrative pronouns have no tense. But we agree that this grace and faith are not from ourselves, but are a gift of God.
It would not be ad hoc at all. Several verses plainly speak to man being unable to co-work in his own salvation.
Such as?
Spreading the Gospel does not result in the evangelist bringing salvific justification. He is delivering news about a work already completed.
If the gospel were merely news of actions already completed, there would be no need to bring the news. Faith would not even be necessary for salvation. What Christ has done on earth is already completed. But the justification He merited for us is applied to us in baptism. The claim that the gospel is mere information is gnostic, because the good news is not merely information, but is real union with Christ, the grace by which we share in His divine life, and hence have the hope of heaven. And this grace, this participation in the divine nature of which St. Peter speaks (2 Pet 1:4), by which we are justified, is neither a past event nor mere information.
The author then cites Phil. 2:12. Well, this is a verse about sanctification. The saved is to exercise what he already has…not work to earn it.
Of course one cannot earn what one already has received as a gift. No one has claimed otherwise. I agree that St. Paul is speaking about sanctification, but the word he uses is σωτηρίαν, i.e. salvation, because sanctification is part of salvation. There is no incompatibility between receiving salvation as a gift, and then also, subsequently, working out our salvation in fear and trembling, knowing that we can either squander and reject the gift we have received, or be a faithful steward of what we have received and so grow in that grace and agape we received at baptism.
So what exactly is the author’s issue then?
You can address your comments directly to me Matthew, rather than referring to me in the third person, as if I’m not present.
The point is that any work added to what Christ has done in order to effect forensic justification results in a false Gospel.
Setting aside the disagreement regarding the “forensic” nature of justification, if we are focused on the sense of justification as translation from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light (see Chapter IV of the Sixth Session of Trent), the Catholic Church likewise teaches that this is not something that we can merit in any way. We receive this justification through baptism, as I mentioned above.
Anyone who preached any Gospel different than that from the apostles was to be accursed (Gal. 1:8).
Agreed.
That would certainly include any that required works to be saved…not to be sanctified or work with Christ in His ongoing ministry…but to be saved.
If by ‘saved’ you are referring to justification-as-translation, then the Catholic Church agrees that we cannot merit that. But salvation is not merely justification-as-translation, but includes growing in conformity to Christ, and also dying in a state of grace. And these require walking in agape, and persevering unto death.
Though this is a lesser point in the article, it nevertheless speaks to the eisegesis used in other instances. The context and the very grammar of Galatians 6:16 indicates that the Israel of God is in addition to (AND) those who walk by this rule (i.e. the Church as a whole). The Israel of God consists of those Jews in the Church who know Jesus as Lord and Savior.
I would agree, if by ‘know’ you mean not merely dead faith, but living faith. But this is fully compatible with what I said, nor is it ‘eisegesis.’
I agree with the author where at the end he explains that much of this is based on a given paradigm. I don’t think he is entirely fair in his assessment of the other side’s but that’s not terribly important.
In your opinion, what did I say that was not fair?
The author’s article is really anachronistic. The authors of Trent knew what the reformers believed by sola fide and sola gratia. And they declared such beliefs as anathema. That’s the historical context of what was written and where we need to start.
How does that indicate or entail that the article is “anachronistic”?
To get to the heart of the issue, let me ask the author this: at what moment do you believe a person is forensically justified? In other words, when does the final declaration come down as to the fate of one’s soul for eternity? Is is when that person believes on Jesus as Lord and Savior or after some process? Thank you.
As I explained earlier, we are justified at baptism (see “The Church Fathers on Baptismal Regeneration.”) But that’s not the “final declaration,” because it is possible to fall into mortal sin, or commit apostasy, and fall away from the faith altogether, and die in that condition. (See comment #15 above.)


  1. A public exchange on FB under Tim Challies’s FB post of his article:
    Lance Ferguson Bryan Cross…your words : “Christ is not the only agent of His salvation; by His work He makes us co-workers with Him, such that in Him and through Him who lives within us, we are given the gift of participating in and cooperating with His salvific work.” It seems to me that herein lies the greatest difference. You do not believe Christ accomplished the salvation of His people. You believe He only accomplished the possibility of their salvation (they must participate and cooperate enough to receive it). Is that an accurate understanding of your, and therefore Rome’s, position?
    Like · 2 · May 7 at 4:45pm
    Bryan R Cross Lance, the “fully accomplished” vs. “mere possibility” dilemma is a false dilemma, because there is a middle position. Do you, or do you not, participate in your on-going sanctification?
    Like · May 7 at 4:49pm
    Lance Ferguson Thanks for the response Bryan. I do want to understand your position, so bear with me. It does not seem to me that there can be a middle position? Either Christ fully accomplished salvation, or He did not fully accomplish it (in which case it is up to us to somehow complete it). So, maybe a different question would be better, “Do you (and RC) believe that Christ fully accomplished the eternal forgiveness and righteous standing of His people before the Father through His death and resurrection?”
    Like · May 7 at 5:07pm · Edited
    Lance Ferguson And yes, I do believe that I participate in my ongoing (progressive) sanctification.
    Like · May 7 at 5:10pm
    Bryan R Cross Lance, so because you participate in your sanctification, then, according to your ["fully accomplished" or "mere possibility"] dilemma, because Christ did not already accomplish your ongoing sanctification, therefore He must have made your ongoing salvation only a mere possibility. In that case, how do you avoid the conclusion that you are a pelagian about your ongoing sanctification? i.e. Jesus merely made your ongoing sanctification possible; so you are the one monergistically turning that mere possibility into an actuality?
    Like · May 7 at 5:30pm
    Lance Ferguson Bryan, not intending to debate the issue with you…FB isn’t likely to offer much in the way of convincing others…merely wanting to clarify our differences of belief. Maybe I should have specified that by salvation, I mean that which pertains to people being declared righteous by the Father. i.e. justification. I would not equate ongoing sanctification with salvation. Again, maybe this question would help with the clarity: “Do you (and RC) believe that Christ fully accomplished the eternal forgiveness and righteous standing of His people before the Father through His death and resurrection?” It sounded in your article, from the quote I listed, like you would not believe that?
    Like · May 7 at 6:04pm
    Bryan R Cross Lance, the Catholic paradigm does not easily translate into the Protestant paradigm. But your question is trying to squeeze the Catholic paradigm into a Protestant paradigm parameters. In the Catholic paradigm we are forgiven daily; we receive righteousness from Christ daily. This forgiveness and righteousness is merited for us by Christ, and we receive it from Him throughout our pilgrim way. The notion that sanctification is not by grace, but is instead by human effort alone, is something unheard of in the first fifteen hundred years of the Church. But as soon as you say that sanctification is by grace, and yet you also participate in it, then you yourself reject the dilemma you posed to me.
    Like · May 7 at 6:52pm
    Lance Ferguson Thanks Bryan. While I don’t agree with your final conclusion about sanctification, this thread does show me that I need to better understand how RC understands terms and concepts.
    Hence the dilemma for monergists: either our sanctification is not part of our salvation, since Christ did not fully accomplish it Himself alone, and therefore sanctification is not by grace, but entirely by mere human effort, and entirely optional because it in no way contributes to our salvation, orsanctification is part of our salvation, is not optional for salvation, is by grace, not by human effort alone, but was not fully accomplished by Christ Himself on the cross, because we participate in our sanctification by our present choices and deeds, in which case it necessarily follows that salvation by grace does not entail monergistic salvation.

from a letter from the coming home network:
By Fr. Ray Ryland
I recently received an e-mail in which the author spoke about the issue of justification and salvation. He said he understands Catholic doctrine, but has some difficulty in accepting it on an emotional level.
“In Protestant theology,” he wrote, “or at least that of evangelical Protestants, the conversion experience of accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior suffices for salvation. As you know, this is sometimes expressed as ‘eternal security,’ and indeed it does provide lasting comfort to believers to be assured of their salvation.”
Limitations of space, of course, preclude discussing a vital issue raised by relying on one’s conversion experience for assurance of salvation, but the issue is this: How can I know whether I have given my life to Jesus Christ on His terms or on my terms? How do I determine the truth in this all-important matter?
The belief that one has assurance of salvation — absolute assurance — mistakenly identifies what we may call “objective redemption” and “subjective salvation.” “Objective redemption” denotes the fact that in His life, death, Resurrection, Ascension, and sending of the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ has redeemed the whole universe. Period. Our Christian Faith demands that we be absolutely assured of this fact.
Whether I personally benefit from this objective redemption, however, depends on my response. The merits of Christ have to be received and acted on in my life. That is the process of “subjective salvation.” Unless by God’s grace I appropriate the objective redemption wrought by Jesus Christ, it can have no effect on my life. If I simply take comfort in the fact that Christ has redeemed the world, and do not work continually at receiving that redemption more and more fully into my life, I am living in a serious delusion.
A number of years ago a book was written about an incident in New York City involving two elderly men, the Collier brothers. Neither had married, and they had always lived on upper Park Avenue in the large home where they were born. One day neighbors realized they had not seen the old men for quite a long time. The called the police, who broke into the house and found the old men dead. The coroner determined they starved to death. Neither has been disabled. They simply sat in their home and starved.
The police also found a fortune in cash and negotiable securities, all of it in plain sight. Those old men had starved with a fortune at their fingertips, simply because for some strange reason they refused to buy food.
In the tragedy of the Collier brothers we can see a parable of the Christian life. Because we belong to Jesus Christ through Baptism, we are surrounded by all the riches of heaven. They belong to us. But unless we use them, apply them to our lives, we too will starve spiritually, and forever!
Each of us Christians has the comfort of assurance that Jesus Christ has redeemed us and destined us for everlasting union with Him in glory. But none of us can see the whole future course of his life on earth. Only God can see there. Not one of us, therefore, can have absolute assurance that till his dying day he will always persevere in appropriating Christ’s redemption in his life.
The correspondent I referred to at the beginning expressed his feelings with regard to the Catholic doctrine which I have just summarized. He said, “my reaction to the Catholic doctrine is one of walking on a tightrope and in constant fear of falling to one’s eternal death.”
My response is this. Suppose you really were walking on a tightrope from which you could fall to your destruction. Which would you prefer? Would you want to know the danger you were in, so you could guard against it? Or would you prefer not to know the danger and blithely assume you were walking on solid ground?
My correspondent further expressed his misgivings this way. He said that according to Catholic doctrine, “notwithstanding a lifetime of generally successful and sincere attempts to walk the straight and narrow, if I were to stumble and fall into mortal sin and then suddenly and unexpectedly die, I would lose everything and be cast into darkness.” He asked, how does one “live in confidence and faith, rather than in fear of stumbling?”
The fact is, no one ever “stumbled” into mortal sin. By definition, mortal sin involves serious matter which is freely chosen and to which full consent is given. One has to choose to commit mortal sin; one cannot simply “stumble” into it. Moreover, while we can and must judge that certain actions constitute mortal sin, objectively speaking, only God knows whether in a given instance all the conditions for mortal sin were met.
The whole point in living the Christian life is to keep one’s eyes on Jesus, not on fear of falling into sin. Remember what happened to Peter when he asked to be allowed to walk to Jesus on the water. At Jesus’ invitation he was actually miraculously walking on water, until he took his eyes off Jesus and began looking fearfully at the waves. Then he began to sink. And so do we all when we take our eyes off Jesus.
The scriptural command to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” means striving to let the objective redemption of Jesus Christ unfold in our lives, by His grace. It means to let that objective redemption become more and more fully our subjective salvation. Our confidence, our serenity, and our joy come from knowing that “God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:12f.).
God’s “good pleasure” is to bring us home to Him. We have the ticket. Jesus Christ paid for it. God forbid that we should ever throw that ticket away.  
This article was originally published in the CHNetwork’s Salvation and Justification journal.

See also this article https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2019/09/how-are-we-saved/

see also on the views of the early church concerning salvation: https://chnetwork.org/2010/03/16/salvation-from-the-perspective-of-the-early-church-fathers/

Sunday, May 19, 2013

Christ descended into hell meaning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrowing_of_Hell  summation helpful

This one is helpful too: http://www.thesumma.info/saviour/saviour73.php here is the quote from this:

CHRIST THE SAVIOUR
— A Commentary on the Third Part of St Thomas' Theological Summa
by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O. P.

CHAPTER XXXVII: CHRIST'S DEATH AND DESCENT INTO HELL (cont)
Question 52: Christ's Descent Into Hell
It is of faith and is expressed in the Apostles' Creed according to the Ordo Romanus,[2257] that Christ descended into hell, and it is afterward declared that His soul descended there,[2258] but He did not abolish hell.[2259]

This mystery is expressed in St. Peter's sermon on Pentecost Day, in which he quotes the words of the Psalmist as referring to Christ, namely, "Thou wilt not leave My soul in hell,"[2260] and he says: "The prophet... foreseeing this, spoke of the resurrection of Christ, for neither was He left in hell, neither did His flesh see corruption."[2261]

St. Paul also says of Christ: "Ascending on high, He led captivity captive; He gave gifts to men. Now that He ascended, what is it, but because He also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended above all the heavens, that He might fill all things."[2262]
Did Christ's soul really and substantially descend into hell and not merely effectively; and then was this descent fitting; and what hell was this, and whom did He deliver? St. Thomas gives and exemplifies the answers of tradition.[2263]

First Article:
Christ's soul really and substantially descended into hell and not merely effectively. The Apostles' Creed says: "He descended into hell,"[2264] which obviously and naturally means a real and substantial descent. Similarly St. Paul says: "He also descended first into the lower parts of the earth. He that descended is the same also that ascended above all the heavens, that He might fill all things,"[2265] Likewise St. Peter says, quoting the Psalmist: "Because Thou wilt not leave My soul in hell, nor suffer Thy holy one to see corruption."[2266] The Fathers thus understood this text, especially St. Ignatius, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and St. Augustine.[2267]

St. Thomas explains that Christ's soul did not descend into hell by that kind of motion whereby bodies are moved, but as the angels are moved. And Christ's separated soul was not inoperative in hell, for it operated as the instrument of the divine nature, expelling exterior darkness and illuminating this place.

Second Article: It Was Fitting For Christ To Descend Into Hell
There are three reasons for this.
1) Because man by sin had incurred not only death of the body, but also descent into hell. Therefore it was fitting for Christ to die and descend into hell, so that He might deliver us from the necessity of permanent death (because we shall rise again) and from descent into hell. In this sense Christ is said to have power over death and in dying to have conquered it, according to the prophet, who says: "O death, I will be thy death."[2268]

2) It was fitting for the devil to be overthrown by Christ's passion, so that He should deliver the captives detained in hell.[2269]

3) As He showed forth His power on earth by living and dying, so also it was fitting for Him to manifest it in hell, by visiting it and enlightening it; and so at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, not only of them that are in heaven, but likewise of them that are in hell.[2270]

Third Article:
Christ did not actually descend into the hell of the lost; because, as the Fathers teach, He descended into hell to console and liberate those who were detained there. But nobody is consoled and liberated in the hell of the lost, as will at once be stated. Moreover, the hell of the lost is not a fitting place for Christ. Therefore He descended into the hell of the lost only effectively, arguing with them and convincing them of their infidelity and malice; and this He did by speaking to them or manifesting His will by signs, because local distance is no impediment for spirits.[2271]

Fourth Article:
Christ's soul remained in hell, namely, in the limbo of the holy fathers, until the moment of His resurrection. Hence the Church in the blessing of the paschal candle, sings: "This is the night wherein Christ ascended victorious from hell."[2272] Such is the opinion of St. Irenaeus, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and Tertullian.

Fifth Article:
Christ, descending into hell, delivered the holy fathers. He delivered them from the penalty of original sin, namely, from the penalty whereby they were excluded from the life of glory, of whom the prophet says: "Thou also, by the blood of Thy testament, hast sent forth Thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water,"[2273] And St. Paul says: "Despoiling the principalities and powers,"[2274] namely, the infernal ones, by taking away the just, He brought them from this place of darkness to heaven, that is, to the beatific vision. Such is the opinion of the Fathers, especially St. Augustine[2275] and St. Gregory the Great[2276] and St. Jerome.[2277]

Thus Christ's descent into hell was the cause of exceeding joy to those souls already purified, such as the souls of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the prophets, as also many just and holy women of the Old Testament.

Thus we clearly see that the whole of the Old Testament was not an immediate preparation for eternal life, but for the coming of the Redeemer, who after having suffered and died, had to open the gates of heaven, so that we might enter into eternal life. The first and most abundant fruits of the sacrifice on the cross are also made manifest. Then, too, the fathers of the Old Testament fully understood that the passion of Jesus was the source of all graces, and that without it they could neither have been justified nor have merited an increase of grace, nor obtained eternal life. Therefore they were most sincerely thankful to the Savior whose coming they awaited for many centuries, who is called "the desire of the eternal hills, the joy of the angels, the King of patriarchs, the Crown of all the saints, ."[2278]

By the mystery of the holy Incarnation, by the labors of Jesus, by His agony and passion, by His infirmities, and by His death they were liberated. In all these things they saw the most perfect fulfillment of what had been announced and the truth that the mystery of the redemptive Incarnation far transcends all figures, all sacrifices of the Old Law, all prophecies. Christ's descent into hell truly meant for them, "it is consummated."[2279] All these things proclaim the glory of the cross.

Sixth Article:
Christ did not deliver any of the lost by His descent into hell; because, since Christ's descent into hell operated in virtue of His passion, He liberated only those whom He found united to His passion by means of faith that is actuated by charity. But the lost did not believe in Christ's passion and they were not finally united with Christ by charity, and after death there is no possibility of conversion, because the lost are confirmed in evil, as the just are in good.

Seventh Article:
For the same reason, the children who died in original sin were not liberated by Christ. Baptism is administered to men in this life, wherein man can be changed from sin to grace. But Christ's descent into hell was granted to the souls after this life, when they are no longer capable of this aforesaid change.

Eighth Article:
Christ did not deliver all the souls in purgatory by His descent into hell. For Christ's passion did not have greater power then than now. But now it does not free all souls in purgatory, but only those that are sufficiently cleansed, or to whom Christ's passion is applied by the Sacrifice of the Mass. Christ's descent into hell was not satisfactory; it operated, however, in virtue of the Passion; thus He did not free all those who, when still living united with their bodies, had merited by their faith and devotion toward Christ's death, that by His descent there, they should be freed from the temporal punishment of purgatory, as St. Thomas says.[2280]

Some theologians, however, said that Christ's descent, although it did not of itself free all souls from purgatory, there was then granted to them the favor of a quasi-plenary indulgence, which is a probable opinion. Yet the commentators of St. Thomas follow his view, and furthermore say that the souls in purgatory that were not then liberated, were consoled and also rejoiced at the thought of the glory they will at once receive after their purgation.


Here--http://bible.org/question/what-does-bible-mean-when-it-says-christ-descended-hell  This is prob a prot. reference  It
explains Eph 4:8-11

A lutheran explains 1 Peter 3:18-22  http://xrysostom.blogspot.com/2005/07/he-descended-into-hell.html

catechism of Catholic church http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a5p1.htm


631 Jesus "descended into the lower parts of the earth. He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens."476 The Apostles' Creed confesses in the same article Christ's descent into hell and his Resurrection from the dead on the third day, because in his Passover it was precisely out of the depths of death that he made life spring forth:
Christ, that Morning Star, who came back from the dead, and shed his peaceful light on all mankind, your Son who lives and reigns for ever and ever. Amen.477
632 The frequent New Testament affirmations that Jesus was "raised from the dead" presuppose that the crucified one sojourned in the realm of the dead prior to his resurrection.478 This was the first meaning given in the apostolic preaching to Christ's descent into hell: that Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there.479

633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, "hell" - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.480 Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into "Abraham's bosom":481 "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham's bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell."482 Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.483

634 "The gospel was preached even to the dead."484 The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfilment. This is the last phase of Jesus' messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ's redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption.

635 Christ went down into the depths of death so that "the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live."485 Jesus, "the Author of life", by dying destroyed "him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and [delivered] all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage."486 Henceforth the risen Christ holds "the keys of Death and Hades", so that "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth."487
Today a great silence reigns on earth, a great silence and a great stillness. A great silence because the King is asleep. The earth trembled and is still because God has fallen asleep in the flesh and he has raised up all who have slept ever since the world began. . . He has gone to search for Adam, our first father, as for a lost sheep. Greatly desiring to visit those who live in darkness and in the shadow of death, he has gone to free from sorrow Adam in his bonds and Eve, captive with him - He who is both their God and the son of Eve. . . "I am your God, who for your sake have become your son. . . I order you, O sleeper, to awake. I did not create you to be a prisoner in hell. Rise from the dead, for I am the life of the dead."488
IN BRIEF
636 By the expression "He descended into hell", the Apostles' Creed confesses that Jesus did really die and through his death for us conquered death and the devil "who has the power of death" (Heb 2:14).
637 In his human soul united to his divine person, the dead Christ went down to the realm of the dead. He opened heaven's gates for the just who had gone before him.

476 Eph 4:9-10.
477 Roman Missal, Easter Vigil 18, Exsultet.
478 Acts 3:15; Rom 8:11; 1 Cor 15:20; cf. Heb 13:20.
479 Cf. 1 Pet 3:18-19.
480 Cf. Phil 2:10; Acts 2:24; Rev 1:18; Eph 4:9; Pss 6:6; 88:11-13.
481 Cf. Ps 89:49; 1 Sam 28:19; Ezek 32:17-32; Lk 16:22-26.
482 Roman Catechism I, 6, 3.
483 Cf. Council of Rome (745): DS 587; Benedict XII, Cum dudum (1341): DS 1011; Clement VI, Super quibusdam (1351): DS 1077; Council of Toledo IV (625): DS 485; Mt 27:52-53.
484 1 Pet 4:6.
485 Jn 5:25; cf. Mt 12:40; Rom 10:7; Eph 4:9.
486 Heb 2:14-15; cf. Acts 3:15.
487 Rev 1:18; Phil 2:10.
488 Ancient Homily for Holy Saturday: PG 43, 440A, 452C; LH, Holy Saturday, OR.

Thursday, May 16, 2013

sufficient grace/thomistic thought and Molinist


Christ’s atoning sacrifice is sufficient for every human being, and God offers sufficient grace to everyone. We can however distinguish between sufficient grace and efficacious or effectual grace. It is consistent with Catholic theology that the grace of God is efficacious or effectual for those who have been predestined to final salvation, whereas the non-elect (the reprobate) receive grace sufficient for their salvation, but not effectual for their salvation. According to some Catholic schools (classical Molinism, e.g.), efficacious grace is extrinsically effective — that is, it becomes effective when recipients of such grace respond to it in a salutary manner — whereas according to other schools (Augustinian and Thomistic) efficacious grace is intrinsically effective, in the sense that it is effectual per se. Augustinian and Thomistic thought is therefore closer to Calvinist thought than is (classical) Molinism, as regards the nature of the grace of final perseverance.
For further reading on this, I suggest Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange’s Predestination, Louis Bouyer’sThe Spirit and Forms of Protestantism (see his chapter on Aquinas and Trent), or the Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry on Predestination. (This latter is written by someone with clear classical Molinist sympathies, and he offers some criticisms of stronger views of predestination; however, it is important to note that the views of predestination he criticizes qua Molinist are not deemed heretical, but are admissible views for Catholics to take.)


also from  http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/TULIP.htm

A Catholic can agree with the idea that enabling grace is intrinsically efficacious and, consequently, that all who receive this grace will repent and come to God. Aquinas taught, "God's intention cannot fail... Hence if God intends, while moving it, that the one whose heart he moves should attain to grace, he will infallibly attain to it, according to John 6:45, 'Everyone that has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.'" [31] Catholics must say that, while God may give efficacious grace only to some, he gives sufficient grace to all. This is presupposed by the fact that he intended the atonement to be sufficient for all. Vatican II stated, "[S]ince Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate calling of man is in fact one and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery." [32]

from here:comment 21 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/04/thought-experiment-for-monergists/


The Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter V directly addresses the question of the actual graces that must be received by an adult before he chooses to become justified through the Sacrament of Baptism:
“The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight.”

 The Council here is teaching that there are two kinds of actual grace that must be received by fallen man before he can make a free choice for reconciliation with God through the Sacraments of Initiation. First, he must receive the actual grace of prevenient grace that enlightens his understanding, and that grace is received without any merit on the part of man. This is a monergistic movement by God – God deigns, by a sovereign act of his will, to give fallen man enlightenment, an enlightenment that allows man to understand that he is in need of justification and conversion. After the man has been enlightened by prevenient grace, he receives the actual grace of quickening and assisting grace, and this actual grace gives enough healing to man’s wounded nature that he can now cooperate with God in his conversion and movement towards justification. Quickening and assisting grace can be resisted, and, ultimately, it can be rejected – or – this actual grace can be accepted, and by cooperation with this grace, a man can move towards reception of the sanctifying grace bestowed by the Sacraments of Initiation. This is cooperation with quickening and assisting grace is synergistic – the man can’t move in this grace unless he has this grace, yet at the same time, this grace is not irresistible, since he can exercise his free will to reject this grace.

see also http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/grace5.htm
  This is really a helpful article dealing with sufficient grace and efficacious grace

another one found here http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/reality.htm#59

Concerning this (some of these links) this guy writes comment 358 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/why-protestantism-has-no-visible-catholic-church/

Sure. I read Predestination a few years back – great book (have not yet read Providence) – it’s where I first came across Thomas’ notion of predilection – those 4 links I sent cover some of the same ground as the book so it definitely won’t hurt getting familiar with that before the book.
He does in that link, as all traditions have to in these matters, retreat to mystery ultimately as he references Bossuet – “In other words, “It must be admitted (in opposition to the Jansenists) that there are two interior graces, of which one (namely, sufficient grace) leaves our soul inexcusable before God after sin, and of which the other (that is, efficacious grace) does not permit our will to glory in itself after accomplishing good works.”

In part 7 of the link he cites an objection to intrinsically efficacious grace by those who say Trent condemned it via:
“If anyone should say that free will, moved and stimulated by God, does nothing to cooperate by assenting to God’s encouragement and invitation…or that it cannot dissent if it so wills but, like something inanimate, does not act at all and merely keeps itself passive, let him be anathema.”
He replies:
“Indeed, more probably than not, the fathers of the Council referred in this canon not only to efficacious grace, but to intrinsically efficacious grace and motion, for Luther had spoken of it, declaring that: “Intrinsically efficacious grace takes away liberty.” The Council anathematizes those who speak thus, so that the Council must be defining the contradictory proposition. Its intention is to declare that even intrinsically efficacious grace does not deprive man of liberty, for he can resist if he so wills. The Council does not maintain that man does, in fact, sometimes dissent, but that “he can dissent if he so wills.” In other words, the contrary power remains, but under efficacious grace man never wills to resist, nor does he; otherwise the grace would not be efficacious or there would be a contradiction in terms; that is, otherwise grace would not cause us to act.”
Notice how LFW is maintained – the power remains to resist, even though the agent will never do so (similar to sufficient grace being both truly sufficient and merely sufficient). Not so in Jansenism or other deterministic systems.

[see here the book on Predestination http://www.thesumma.info/predestination/index.php  and then the one on Providence http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/provid.htm  both by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.

Then there was a guy that disagreed with Lagrange who was also a Dominican--here is a summary: http://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t914-god-s-permission-of-sin-negative-or-conditioned-decree
  and excerpts from a book discussing this can be found here http://openisbn.org/preview/3727816597/

Here is a bit of a quote from the book quoted in the summary:

Garrigou-Lagrange’s position defines God’s permission as a non-preservation in the moral good. Given this permission, a creature is infallibly defective. God, knowing his defect, moves him to his sinful act. God is not responsible for sin, because He need not preserve a creature in the moral good. Marin-Sola’s position defines God’s permission as a will to leave a creature to its condition. If the creature is defectible, this entails moving him towards the honest good such that he can fail or not fail to obtain is end. If the creature is defective, this entails leaving him to his condition, from which he infallibly remains defective. The defect itself, however, proceeds from the creature, even though it need not, and grounds his responsibility for sin.

Garrigou-Lagrange’s position is indefensible, for God’s non-preservation is a per accidens cause of a consequent defect. On this theory, God becomes the first cause of sin as sin. Its mistake lies in assuming that defect in being must be explained in relation to an extrinsic, rather than an intrinsic, cause. Its mistaken interpretation of Aquinas derives from conflating two senses of permission, without realizing that they involve different suppositions.

Marin-Sola’s position insists on the radical absurdity of sin. It cannot be reduced to God being, intellect, or will. By sinning, the creature places impediments to the course of grace, to particular ends of God’s general providence, and to the fruition of His antecedent will. Only if the creature abandons God is he abandoned. God eternally sees the creature’s independent defect in its own action and uses it to good effect. This is Aquinas’s doctrine and implicitly that of the Catholic Church.






..................................................................................."Marin’s doctrine argues for two different physical premotions, one fallible and one infallible, one conditionally efficacious or simply sufficient and one unconditionally efficacious or simply efficacious. From this, he logically deduces that there are two orders of God’s providence, a general one whose particular ends are impedible and a special one whose particular ends are unimpedible. It is not surprising then, to find him likewise deducing a similar truth about God’s will. That is, he holds that God possesses an antecedent will of an end that is conditional and resistible, and a consequent will of an end that is absolute, unconditional and irresistible:
................................................................................................................................................................If God’s antecedent will considers a man without some circumstances of his life, but not without all, it remains to determine from what circumstances it abstracts. In Marin’s view, it abstracts from only one such circumstance, final impenitence. For each and every man, until the moment of his death, it can truly be said that God possesses an active will to save him:.......................

"The essential difference between the antecedent and the consequent will, therefore, lies in this, that the antecedent will to save man regards that man without taking into consideration whether or not he dies impenitent. God’s consequent will, however, considers man with all the circumstances of his life, including the final one. It is only on supposition of a person’s final refusal of God that one can say that He absolutely wills not to save Him, and that His salvific will is inefficacious.

"To say that a person wills something without considering certain circumstances is equivalent to saying that he wills the object conditionally. This is why it is called a conditional will to save that person
................................................................“The easiest way to appreciate his position is to recall that God is free to govern His creatures according to certain laws, to provide for them according to a certain established order. This equally applies to his gift of grace. The first “law” concerns His general supernatural providence:

Of this order we recognize two laws (a) that God gives to all men, at least to all adults, some sufficient grace, grace greater or less, proximately or remotely sufficient, as it pleases God, but really and truly efficient to keep the commandments and be saved; (b) that once the first sufficient grace, called vocation is given, God always and infallibly gives the efficacious grace for justification if man, by his own fault, does not paralyze the course of sufficient grace, placing an impediment to its course; that is, if he does with it what he can and prays for what he is not able to do (N 377).

 “Such laws, clearly, signaled by most of the Thomistic commentators, are not based on any merit on man’s part or in any way tied to what he is capable of doing by nature much less what he can do by his fallen nature. Rather, for fallen man, they are based solely upon what Christ has done for him
:



The laws of the motions of general supernatural providence are founded, for the angels and for man in a state of integral nature, upon the elevation to the supernatural order. The laws of the motions of general supernatural providence, for fallen nature, are founded on the passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom, all men have been redeemed, that is restored to the rights of the elevation to the supernatural order lost through original sin … the premotions of grace proper to the general supernatural providence are in a certain manner owed to redeemed nature, or better, owed to the adorable blood of our Divine Saviour (N378).

“Thus, any action or any merit accomplished through the gift of sufficient grace is first and foremost to be attributed not to fallen man, but the perfect God-man who came to save all His brothers and sisters.