A Critique Of Non-calvinist Soteriologies

[ICTHUS]

[quote][b]Acts 20:29 [/b]I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock.
[b]30[/b]And from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth to draw the disciples away after them. [/quote]

That's right. Men like the "Fathers" of the Council of Trent who taught apostate dogmas of works righteousness.

[conservativecatholic]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 15 2004, 06:05 PM'] Sure, they were catholic. But not Roman Catholic. The Apostle Paul would foam at the mouth and then proceed to kick and scream and beat the Pope with the Letter to the Romans if he read the Catechism of the Catholic Church today. [/quote]
:rotfl: What a joke. What do you mean they weren't Roman Catholic? Roman Catholicism is the only catholic church. If it isn't the true catholic church, then what is; Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Orthodoxy? The universal Church that Jesus established in 33 AD is The Holy Roman Catholic Church. Even secular historians would agree with me. You can't deny fact. The Apostles were indeed Roman Catholic. Good day.

[phatcatholic]

icthus,

did you see my invitation for a debate on the immaculate conception? let me know what your decision is.

also, what happened to [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=8328"][b][i]this[/i] icthus[/b][/url]?

[quote name='ICTHUS' date=' Mar 3 2004, 02:08 AM']Why I Am A Catholic

As for the second question, "Why am I a Catholic?", I hope you’ll forgive my going into some detail, as this is not a topic which I can gloss over in a few sentences (or a page or two, for that matter)

Well, for one, when I was in my non-denominational church I was extremely dissatisfied with the lack of theological depth present therein. Also, I developed a curiosity (some would say, an unhealthy one) for discovering the roots of Patristic Christianity - how exactly was the Lords Supper celebrated by the early Christians? Was the Early Church liturgical in its worship, as Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and some Presbyterian churches are today? In other words, I desired to know what form the Christian faith took, after the 13 Apostles who had directly seen the Lord Jesus, had passed away. To whom did they entrust the message of the Gospel? What day-to-day instructions did the Churches of God observe? Interestingly enough, a recent archaeological discovery in the area of early Christianity is that of a document called the (Didace apostoloV) (Didache Apostolos) – or, the Teaching of the Apostles. Obviously, it was not important enough to the Holy Spirit for the document to be included in the Canon of Scripture, as the Bishops of the Church did not include it when they finalized the Canon of the Bible in the 5th century. However, the Didache, which most scholars believe to be authored by the Apostles themselves, provides important insights into how the early Church conducted itself. More, however, on the Didache in a moment. 

What struck me most, however, was the correspondance between the Church Fathers conceptions of the Eucharist (The word “Eucharist” comes from the Greek word “Eucharistian”, or “Thanksgiving”), and Jesus' own words in John 6:48-68.

Influential Church Fathers such as St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Justin Martyr, St. Augustine, and even the aforementioned Didache Apostolos, all spoke of “The Eucharist”, the “Body of the Lord”, the “Sacrament of the Altar” and “The Sacrifice” – and all of these terms seemed connected in some way with the service I commonly knew as Holy Communion – the Lords Supper.  And all of these seem to give a literal interpretation of the Lord’s own words in John 6, and what’s more, attached far more meaning to the concept of the ‘memorial’ that the Lord commands in Luke 22:19. On this last point, it’s worthwhile to elaborate at some length, because it’s crucial.

Our Lord uses the Greek phrase “Touto poiete eis tan emahn anamneisin” in Luke 22:19, and it is usually translated as “Do this in memory of Me”. However, the Greek word “anamnesin” used herein demands a deeper reading. You see, English has no real equivalent to convey its meaning – we fall short of its real meaning when we try to communicate it in one or two words. It conveys the meaning of a memorial, but not in the sense that we usually think of a memorial. Memorial, in the sense of the word anamnesis, means something like “to actually revisit and re-present the event signified”. In order to really do justice to this word, then, we would have to portray Christ saying something entirely too unwieldy, such as “Make ye My anamnesis”, or, to eliminate the Greek derivative altogether, “Do this as a re-presentation of the event signified by this action which I am performing.”

We then proceed, with this definition in mind, to the question “What event did the Last Supper signify?”  The ‘bread’ and ‘wine’ at the Last Supper, as is clearly indicated by the context, signified the imminent Passion, Crucifixion, and Death of Christ. If, therefore, Christ told his apostles to re-present the event signified by the action he was performing, he was actually telling His apostles to celebrate this supper, and every time they did so, they were actually present at His cross, witnessing the one sacrifice which He offered for all time and eternity, and receiving the benefits of that sacrifice, eating and drinking that which the Lord Jesus affirms is His own flesh and blood, given for the life of the world. (John 6:48-68) 

This may come as a shock to you that we believe this, but I assure you, this is the doctrine that the Church has taught for two millennia. (I can substantiate this with quotes from the Church Fathers to show the consistency of this teaching through the ages, if you like, but I will refrain from doing so at the moment for the sake of saving space.) The Lords Supper is much more than a superficial remembering of Jesus’ death on the cross. It is a revisitation of that same death – not a resacrificing of Him, as some of our Reformed brethren who misunderstand what we believe, think, but a participation in His one Sacrifice, which was offered once by Christ for the salvation of all men, and for all time. This is why we sometimes refer to our Divine Liturgy as the ‘Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” – because it is a real participation in the one Holy Sacrifice offered by Christ.

So, why am I not a Protestant? Because, firstly and foremostly, Protestantism denies the doctrine I just described above. Ever since John Calvin and those who started Presbyterianism formulated the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Anglican Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, Protestant Christians have misunderstood what we mean when we say that we offer Christ’s one sacrifice. They take it to mean that we offer Him again and again, which is, in my thought, and in the language of Article Thirty-one of the Thirty-nine Articles, an idea plainly blasphemous and hurtful to His sacrifice. If the Catholic Church taught it, I would be the first to leave her fold. But she does not. Rather, we believe that Christ Himself acts through the person of His presbyter, standing before the Father Himself, making intercession through His own blood.

Furthermore, the Lord Himself affirms that we must eat His flesh, and drink His blood, otherwise we have no life in us (Jn 6:48-68). This is a teaching that the Church Fathers have re-iterated for twenty centuries, and which the Church teaches today.

Also, the Catholic Church views salvation as both a legal declaration, and a familial adoption into a covenant. There is a disturbing tendency within Protestantism to reduce our redemption to mere legal accquittal. While God does declare us righteous by faith in Christ, He also adopts us as His Sons and Daughters, making us partakers of the Divine Nature (2 Pet 1:3-5). Christians, in the view of Catholic apologist Scott Hahn, are saved not only from sin, but for sonship!

Furthermore, what He declares to be so on the basis of faith in Christ, he actually does. Luther used the analogy of a snow-covered dunghill to represent the redeemed Christians righteousness - God sees the 'snow' of Christs righteousness, and not the dung. As believers, we ought to find this analogy utterly repulsive. Can the unredeemed mans soul be compared to a dunghill? Perhaps, but is not dung an excellent fertilizer? Certainly, the dunghill may be covered in snow, but when spring comes, the snow melts and waters the dunghill, bacterium break it down, and it becomes soil. Beautiful wildflowers begin to grow on what was once a stinking, rotting mass of dung. All the while, it snows periodically, covering the mound in snow.

This analogy represents the Catholic model of justification, verses the Protestant model as proposed by Luther. In the former, the snow covers the dunghill, but the snow, which represents Christs righteousness imputed to a man by faith, melts into the hill, causing it to break down, become soil, and grow wildflowers, representing the fruits of faith. Whereas, in the Protestant model, the dunghill does nothing but sit there, and remain a pile of dung covered in snow.

Perhaps this is an inadequate analogy. The crux of the issue is, however, that in justification, God not only declares righteous, but because His word is omnipotent, His word proceeds forth and makes a person righteous. The Protestant model of justification, however, is sadly lacking because it seeks to divorce the omnipotence of Gods saving declaration, from the declaration itself, resulting in the utter divorce of two theological terms which you are no doubt familiar with - "Justification" - to declare just, and "sanctification" - to make holy (or just)[/quote]

[Sojourner]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 15 2004, 06:03 PM'] I suppose thats right in line with a text such as Acts 16:14


[/quote]
God opened Lydia's heart to hear Paul's message, but she was already a worshipper of God. This is hardly an example of God redeeming someone against her will. He enabled to her to more fully know that which she was already worshipping -- Himself.




[quote][quote]I believe that at every moment of our lives God gives us the grace we need not to sin. [/quote]

Scripture?[/quote]

1 Cor. 10:13

[point5]

phatcatholic what did happen to THAT Icthus...one day I was like....oh no...his whole world just flipped upsidown...lol...I saw it coming however.

-Kiel

[Antonius]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 15 2004, 05:36 PM'] The Fathers were not the first Christians. The apostles were, and they wrote the Bible. [/quote]
Was Paul one of the Twelve? It seems to me that they wrote Gospels, Epistles, and an Apocalypse. Not the Bible. Doesn't Bible come from a word for book?

[Brother Adam]

[quote] We are given the Spirit for exactly this purpose. The burden is not so great that the consciencious man of God cannot discern the true meaning of Scripture.[/quote]

Yet You are using scripture out of context here. If the the burden was not so great then all men who earnestly sought out God would be able to equally as much interpret scripture. And yet Protestantism is a great testiment to the reason why this doesn't work. The gift to correctly interpret the scriptures is not given to everyone who seeks after God. The gift is given to the Church.

[Apotheoun]

At the link below is a response by an Eastern Orthodox author to a Calvinist essay on the nature of salvation. The response highlights the importance of the [i]incarnation[/i] and [i]theosis[/i] in Eastern theology, culminating in the Paschal Mystery of Christ, and the transformative nature of grace that results from the Christ event. The great benefit of the article is that it clarifies the Orthodox, [i]and in most respects the Eastern Catholic[/i], view of salvation, and shows why those Eastern Churches in communion with Rome and even those that are not, have rejcted the theological nominalism of Calvinism. It is a rather long article, but it is quite informative and very detailed, and well worth reading.

[url="http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frag_salv.aspx"]Salvation By Christ: A Response to the Credenda/Agenda[/url]

[MorphRC]

Interesting Stuff

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jul 16 2004, 12:31 AM'] icthus,

did you see my invitation for a debate on the immaculate conception? let me know what your decision is.

also, what happened to [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=8328"][b][i]this[/i] icthus[/b][/url]?



[/quote]
That ICTHUS (Ryan) [b]woke up[/b]. He began to see no fruit in the Catholic Church. His youth group didn't care about the faith. None of his Catholic Church friends had even bothered to read the Letter to the Romans in their private Scripture study, if they even read the Bible at all in private devotions - that great testament of Soteriology in which the Apostle, St. Paul, defends salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, from the Judaizers who would try to insert mans feeble works like circumcision and obedience to the Mosaic Law into the Gospel. I realized that none of these Romanists cared about how to be saved, they were content to wallow in apostasy and be damned. So I left the Catholic Church. Simple.

"By their fruit shall ye know them"

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jul 16 2004, 12:31 AM'] icthus,

did you see my invitation for a debate on the immaculate conception? let me know what your decision is.

also, what happened to [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=8328"][b][i]this[/i] icthus[/b][/url]?



[/quote]
My decision is that I'm currently too busy to debate that.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='conservativecatholic' date='Jul 15 2004, 09:48 PM'] The Apostles were indeed Roman Catholic. Good day. [/quote]
[color=red]edited for not being true by cmom[/color]
If I had to guess, Anglicanism has retained the episcopacy in succession from the Apostles (in spite of the [color=red][edit] [/color]"Church" of Rome [color=red][uncharitable comment: edited by littleflower][/color] claiming otherwise) and true Reformed (i.e. Biblical) doctrine. But I do not deny that other churches, insofar as they contain mixtures of error and good, are catholic as well - for instance, Presbyterians have the true faith insofar as their soteriology is correct according to Scripture, but their ecclesiology leaves something to be desired.

Edited July 18, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[ICTHUS]

Also, it should be noted that the post at the beginning of this thread was [b]not authored by me[/b]. It was authored by a friend of mine, a youth minister in Texas.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 17 2004, 12:46 PM']That ICTHUS (Ryan) [b]woke up[/b]. He began to see no fruit in the Catholic Church. His youth group didn't care about the faith. None of his Catholic Church friends had even bothered to read the Letter to the Romans in their private Scripture study, if they even read the Bible at all in private devotions - that great testament of Soteriology in which the Apostle, St. Paul, defends salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, from the Judaizers who would try to insert mans feeble works like circumcision and obedience to the Mosaic Law into the Gospel. I realized that none of these Romanists cared about how to be saved, they were content to wallow in apostasy and be damned. So I left the Catholic Church. Simple.

"By their fruit shall ye know them"[/quote]
This is the most superficial reasoning I have heard in my life. So, I suppose every Calvinist has good fruits? You don't leave the Church because there are people in it who happen to be lukewarm; anymore than you stop going to doctors because one doctor is a quack. By the way, I love to read the Letter to the Romans, but I refuse to read it in a Calvinist sense. No one before John Calvin read it in the way he did, so why should anyone today be obliged to read it and understand it as he did. The entire Reformation is built upon a [i]theological novum[/i], i.e., an idea contrary to all that came before it, and that idea is the false notion that justification and sanctification are two separate realities, and that salvation is by faith alone. No one held that viewpoint prior to the Reformation, and neither scripture nor tradition teach it. That salvation is by faith is true, but nowhere does the word of God, either in scripture or tradition, say that it is by faith alone. Quite the contrary, that catch phrase is actually explicitly condemned in scripture, for as James said, "You will see that man is [i]justified[/i] by works, and not by faith alone. . . . For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead." [James 2:24 and 26] And St. Augustine, often quoted by our separated brethren, said, "Let us now consider the question of faith. In the first place, we feel that we should advise the faithful that they would endanger the salvation of their souls if they acted on the false assurance that faith alone is sufficient for salvation or that they need not perform good works in order to be saved. When St. Paul says, therefore, that man is justified by faith and not by the observance of the law, he does not mean that good works are not necessary or that it is enough to receive and to profess the faith and no more. What he means rather and what he wants us to understand is that man can be justified by faith, even though he has not previously performed any works of the law. For the works of the law are meritorious not before but after justification." [St. Augustine, "On Faith and Works," [u]Ancient Christian Writers[/u], vol. 48, pages 28-29] Justification and sanctification are inseparable, they are a process, and through this process man is adopted as a son of God in the only begotten Son of God, and by this gift of divine filiation he grows in grace, he grows in justice and sanctity throughout his life, and should he persevere to the end, he shall be fully divinized. Ultimately Calvinism is a form of rationalism, in that it is an attempt to reduce the mysteries of the faith to rational categories which somehow exhaust the infinite nature of God. It tries to protect the omnipotence of God, as if His omnipotence needs protection, and in doing these things it empties Christianity of the power to save, because it reduces Christian faith to a merely human rational action, devoid of anything mysterious. It fails to recognize the analogy that exists between the incarnation and salvation, i.e., the fact that Christ was two wills and energies, divine and human, and that the cooperation of His human will, which was perfectly conformed to His divine will, was necessary in order for man to be saved; and that this truth is also to be found in those who have been regenerated by faith and baptism, so that Christ's members, i.e., those who have been incorporated into His body, must, through grace and their own free wills restored by grace, concur in their own salvation. In this way a man can work out his salvation in fear and trembling, for it is God willing and working in him for His good purpose. [cf., Phil. 2:12-13] To deny this is not only to reject the truth that God has restored man's freedom by grace, but also involves falling into the Christological heresy of Monothelitism. All the mysteries of the faith interpenetrate each other, and so, to deny one mystery is to deny, to a greater or lesser degree, other mysteries. It is one of the great ironies of history that both Calvin's and Luther's views can lead one into a form of Pelagianism, because both men focus so heavily on the human act of faith alone, which becomes the sole criterion for a man's salvation, that they reduce salvation itself to a simple belief, a belief devoid of divine love ([i]agape[/i]) which they erroneously hold can be salvific, and yet as scripture tells us, even the demons have a type of belief in God devoid of charity. [cf., James 2:19] Faith without love is dead, for "If I have all faith, so as to remove a mountain, but I have not love, [i]I am nothing[/i]." [1 Cor. 13:2] Faith is necessary in this life, but it will not be needed when you see God face to face; and hope is necessary in this life, because we hope for that which we do not yet definitively possess, but once we enter into the beatific vision, we no longer need the virtue of hope; and love is necessary in this life, for if we are devoid of love, we are not justified, nor are we in communion with God, who is Love itself. Love is eternal, it will not pass away when we enter into the beatific vision, because God is love, and so it is the one infused virtue that endures into eternity. As St. Ignatius of Antioch said to the Christians of Ephesus, "Nothing of this escapes you; only persevere to the end in your faith in, and your love for, Jesus Christ. Here is the beginning and the end of life: [i] faith is the beginning, the end is love, and when the two blend perfectly with each other, they are God[/i]. Everything else that makes for right living is consequent upon these." [St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ephesians 14:1] Faith without love has no point, and so we love God, because He has first loved us. [cf., 1 John 4:10]

Edited July 17, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jul 17 2004, 12:52 PM']If I had to guess, Anglicanism has retained the episcopacy in succession from the Apostles (in spite of the [[color=red]uncharitable comment edited by Apotheoun[/color]] Church of Rome [[color=red]uncharitable statement edited by Apotheoun[/color]]) and true Reformed (i.e. Biblical) doctrine. But I do not deny that other churches, insofar as they contain mixtures of error and good, are catholic as well - for instance, Presbyterians have the true faith insofar as their soteriology is correct according to Scripture, but their ecclesiology leaves something to be desired.[/quote]
Having been an Anglican (Anglo-Catholic) I can tell you that it is not the answer. The famous dictum that Anglicanism is a bridge between Catholicism and Protestantism is true. But who wants to stand on a bridge? Bridges are meant for crossing from one side to the other, they are not intended as a place to stand throughout one's life. Besides, it's never a good thing when you join a Church that was founded on a principle contrary to the natural moral law, i.e., the idea that divorce is a good thing.