Vatican II

[qfnol31]

One of the greatest ways to describe our faith is Participative Theonomy, that is, we participate in our salvation. This is an idea upheld by so many Saints, that it would be impossible to name them all. It's an idea that's difficult to describe in concrete terms, but it is easy to describe the two extremes that can be as vices to the virtue of participative theonomy:

Heteronomy - this is a way of saying that everything God says is good just because He says it. We follow Him and His teachings just because He said to. Too far in this direction and we don't even have a say in our salvation because God says who gets saved. It creates a tyrannical approach to God in a way, if we're not careful. If you go far enough you'll run into John Calvin. This was sadly sometimes the tendency about 40 years ago and can be today.

Autonomy - everything we say is correct. There is no higher truth (for perfect autonomy) that we must follow. Everything is relative to ourselves. Not too far in this direction is Martin Luther. Sadly this is seen often today, even amongst the laity.

If you look at these two objectively you see that they are two sides of the same coin. Both are voluntaristic (you take either God or yourself, put Him or you in a vacuum, and then take whatever is said to be absolute truth for yourself). Both of them seperate God and good; one makes good subordinate to God, the other makes good subordinate to self. Both are limiting in the way that they view man. Oftentimes people will try to escape the one and end up in the other. They miss participative theonomy completely.

Participative Theonomy says that there is a God and He is the highest good. He tells us what we do because it is good for us. His teachings aren't just arbitrary, they are truly what is best for us. There is an individuality here (lacked in heteronomy) whereby we can still participate as ourselves, but it is not an individualism (found in autonomy), where there is an objective truth that is present in our lives, but one that is good for us rather than just present. This good of God is an integral part of ourselves. It is first given to us by Natural Law, in which we [i]participate[/i] in Eternal Law of God. Following this leads us to an [i]Authentic Freedom[/i], that is really a freedom from soon to do good.

Now for Vatican II. One of the points of Vatican II was to correct the way in which things were taught. The encyclical of John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor says, "The council urged 'a more appropriate way of communicating' doctrine to the people of their time; since there is a difference between the deposit or the truths of faith and the manner in which they are expressed." That is, the way the Church expressed the truths was different than the truths themselves. Vatican II helped correct these ideas. For an example, look at the following: Previously, though not necessarily because of Vatican II, the procreation of sex was the most pushed end. Today there is more mention of the unitative along side the procreative aspect to sex, both of which are essential to its character. There was never a lack of truth, but a lack of clarity in which it had been expressed.

Today the tendency can easily be for people to end up on either side of issues, and forget about participative theonomy. Take Reconciliation for example. I was always taught that it was either not something I had to do, which leads to a heteronomous God that says my sins are forgiven because He says so, or a autonomous belief that my sins aren't worth anything anyways; or I was taught I had to do it because Jesus said so, which also denotes a heteronomous God who tells me what to do, just because, and not because of it's goodness for me. Both lack something (the first obviously more than the second). Participative Theonomy would say that first Jesus said so because it's good for me, then next it's good for me [i]because[/i] it is something I can participate in; it allows me to give of myself to God, which then opens me up for an Authentic Freedom.

Anyways, the whole point of this is we need to be careful that we remember why we do things along with the things we are supposed to do, as was taught by the Second Vatican Council.

[Theoketos]

Heteronomy and Autonomy seem then to be flip sides of the same arbitrary coin...interesting.

[CatholicforChrist]

A couple questions: First, how was participative theonomy lacking before Vatican II? If anything, it seems that it is lacking in the new charismatic "movement" (read: heresy) in the Church. Second, why would an Ecumenical Council be necessary for such a cause? Thanks. God bless.

[qfnol31]

According to John Paul II, participative theonomy was lacking in the way that different articles of the faith were being taught, which came from a council that was trying to combat Protestantism (and was good for its time). It's actually very easy to take a heteronomous approach in my opinion, I've done it many times.

For the second question, I would say that the answer has to do with Vatican II was a pastoral council, which was what was needed. Vatican II is good, interpretations and the inclination to get away from heteronomy by becomeing autonomous is bad, but also understandable. To heteronomous people, participative theonomy looks autonomous, for autonomous people it looks heteronomous.

Does that help any?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='CatholicforChrist' date='Oct 26 2004, 10:06 AM'] First, how was participative theonomy lacking before Vatican II? If anything, it seems that it is lacking in the new charismatic "movement" (read: heresy) in the Church. [/quote]
[quote]By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?  Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit.  A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit.  -Matthew 7:16-18[/quote]

[quote]But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "This man drives out demons only by the power of Beelzebul, the prince of demons."  But he knew what they were thinking and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be laid waste, and no town or house divided against itself will stand.  And if Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself; how, then, will his kingdom stand?  And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your own people drive them out? Therefore they will be your judges.  But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.  -Matthew 12:24-28[/quote]



There may be some people who claim the Charismatic Movement who do not truly practice it and give it a bad name, but it is not intrinsically wrong, and it has brought about much good.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Oct 25 2004, 11:31 PM'] One of the greatest ways to describe our faith is Participative Theonomy, that is, we participate in our salvation.  This is an idea upheld by so many Saints, that it would be impossible to name them all.  It's an idea that's difficult to describe in concrete terms, but it is easy to describe the two extremes that can be as vices to the virtue of participative theonomy:

Heteronomy - this is a way of saying that everything God says is good just because He says it.  We follow Him and His teachings just because He said to.  Too far in this direction and we don't even have a say in our salvation because God says who gets saved.  It creates a tyrannical approach to God in a way, if we're not careful.  If you go far enough you'll run into John Calvin.  This was sadly sometimes the tendency about 40 years ago and can be today.

Autonomy - everything we say is correct.  There is no higher truth (for perfect autonomy) that we must follow.  Everything is relative to ourselves.  Not too far in this direction is Martin Luther.  Sadly this is seen often today, even amongst the laity.
[/quote]
How is 'us parcipating in our own salvation' anything but semi-Pelagianism? I'll take Calvin over Rome's semi-Pelagian errors any day.

Monergism, baby. It's your friend.

Edited October 26, 2004 by ICTHUS

[Brother Adam]

Now I know you don't study ICTHUS. Thank you for putting any doubt in my mind to rest.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 26 2004, 04:39 PM'] How is 'us parcipating in our own salvation' anything but semi-Pelagianism? I'll take Calvin over Rome's semi-Pelagian errors any day.

Monergism, baby. It's your friend. [/quote]
Icthus, would you call God a tyrant? I should think Him all loving, and all giving. I would think that since we're made in the image and likeness of God we too would be called to be all loving and all giving.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Oct 26 2004, 07:49 PM']Icthus, would you call God a tyrant?  [/quote]
Not a tyrant - a benevolent dictator, perhaps, but not a tyrant, at least not in the modern sense of the word (in the Ancient Greek sense of the word, 'tyrant' meant 'ruler' or 'king' - both of which God is)

[quote]I should think Him all loving, and all giving.  I would think that since we're made in the image and likeness of God we too would be called to be all loving and all giving.[/quote] This sounds nice, doesn't it? Unfortunately, it is in direct opposition to the Word of God.

2 Chron 36:16 (NIV throughout)

But they mocked God's messengers, despised his words and scoffed at his prophets until the wrath of the LORD was aroused against his people and there was no remedy.

Nehemiah 13:18

Didn't your forefathers do the same things, so that our God brought all this calamity upon us and upon this city? Now you are stirring up more wrath against Israel by desecrating the Sabbath."

Psalm 7:10-12 (KJV)

10 My defence is of God, which saveth the upright in heart.
11 God judgeth the righteous, and [b]God is angry with the wicked [/b]every day.
12 If he turn not, he will whet his sword; he hath bent his bow, and made it ready.

Isaiah 10:5

"Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger, in whose hand is the club of my wrath!

Now let's see if God changes in the New Testament? (Not that He could ever change, for "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8)

John 3:36

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him

Romans 1:18

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,

Romans 2:5

But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.

Romans 3:5

But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.)

Romans 3:25

God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[ 3:25 Or as the one who would turn aside his wrath, taking away sin] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished–

Romans 5:9

Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!

Romans 9:22

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath–prepared for destruction?

Romans 12:19

Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[ 12:19 Deut. 32:35] says the Lord.

Romans 13:4

For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

[ICTHUS]

Bro Adam...

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man's free will moved and excited by God, [b]by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates [/b]towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

By making justification conditional on our acceptance of it, Rome affirms semi-Pelagianism and denies monergistic regeneration by grace alone.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that it is not in man's power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil God worketh as well as those that are good, not permissively only, but properly, and of Himself, in such wise that the treason of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of Paul; let him be anathema.

Here I would qualify something. God does not properly work evil in anyone. He permits it, but because He cannot but move things towards their end, a man with evil in his heart is only moved towards greater evil by God's impelling his action. Apart from the Holy Spirits intervention, the unjust man can never make himself do good things.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 28 2004, 04:44 PM'] Not a tyrant - a benevolent dictator, perhaps, but not a tyrant, at least not in the modern sense of the word (in the Ancient Greek sense of the word, 'tyrant' meant 'ruler' or 'king' - both of which God is) [/quote]
Do you think that God = Good?



[quote]For God Loveth mercy and truth: the Lord will give grace and glory.[/quote]

[quote]For God so Loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.[/quote]

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Oct 28 2004, 05:15 PM']




[/quote]
[quote]Do you think that God = Good?[/quote] Absolutely - God is by definition good - but He is also just and hates evil.

[quote]For God Loveth mercy and truth: the Lord will give grace and glory.[/quote] Yes - by the way, it would've been nice if you'd told me that was from Psalm 83, Douay-Rheims version!

That translation, from what I've read, is wrong. The KJV, NIV, NKJV, and every other translation that I've read has "The Lord is a sun and a shield, the Lord will give grace and glory"

However, even if we take your premise, that God loves mercy and truth, that doesn't take away from the fact that He shows wrath, as shown above. Yes, He shows mercy, but He also shows terrible wrath to those who reject Him.

[quote]For God so Loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.[/quote]

To quote a friend of mine on this passage...

[quote]I'm sure you are making the assumption that 'world' intends to explain to us how big the thing is that God loved. That's not what's so amazing here. What's amazing is not the size of the thing that God loved, but the fallenness of it. This is so much deeper. To love a lot of things is one thing -- to love what is evil is another, and much greater, thing entirely. Throughout John's writings, you'll see that "the world" intends to speak to us of something evil and fallen, not something big. In John 3:16, then, Jesus tells us how great the Father's love is because He loved this evil thing and came to redeem it with certainty, not because He loved each and every individual so He gave them the chance to earn their salvation by accepting Jesus into their hearts and receiving Him as their personal Lord and Savior (if His love was really that great, why did He just give them the chance, instead of making it actual?).[/quote]

This passage in no way nullifies the idea of God's wrath.

Edited October 29, 2004 by ICTHUS

[qfnol31]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 28 2004, 09:02 PM'] Absolutely - God is by definition good - but He is also just and hates evil. [/quote]
I agree that He is. My point with participative theonomy is that we seek after that good. God doesn't just dictate it to us and that act alone makes it good, but rather He tells us what is good for us.

Now about the loving. The Trinity, properly understood, is the giving of each person to the other. The Father gives Himself to the Son, and the Son gives completely back. Since we're made in the image and likeness of God, it would be fitting that we too give ourselves to God in the same manner.

[ICTHUS]

[quote]I agree that He is.   My point with participative theonomy is that we seek after that good.  God doesn't just dictate it to us and that act alone makes it good, but rather He tells us what is good for us.[/quote] Well, I would say that it's both. God says that something is good, and He makes us with that thing in mind, and then tells us to do it for our own good.

Also, the Bible teaches that there is really and truly nobody who seeks good, apart from those who are in Christ.

[quote]Now about the loving.  The Trinity, properly understood, is the giving of each person to the other.[/quote] Yes.

[quote]The Father gives Himself to the Son, and the Son gives completely back.[/quote] Yes.

[quote]Since we're made in the image and likeness of God, it would be fitting that we too give ourselves to God in the same manner.[/quote] Yes, with one caveat - apart from God's grace quickening our dead souls, who are enemies of God in our natural state, we cannot do so.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 29 2004, 05:25 PM'] Also, the Bible teaches that there is really and truly nobody who seeks good, apart from those who are in Christ. [/quote]
Actually, everyone seeks good, they just have a lack to due order of good. It's impossible to seek evil directly. Give me an example and I'll show you what I mean.