Article: The Augustinian Captivity of the Reformed Church [Archive]

View Full Version : Article: The Augustinian Captivity of the Reformed Church

Saint Nicholas

03-11-2009, 09:04 PM

You can view the page at http://www.predestinarian.net/conten...eformed-Church (http://www.predestinarian.net/content/93-The-Augustinian-Captivity-of-the-Reformed-Church)

doctr_of_grace

03-12-2009, 03:17 PM

verrrrrry interesting ... thanks sir nick :)

The Hawker

03-12-2009, 07:25 PM

Thank you Nicholas for this paper. It has given me a lot of food for thought. :)

wildboar

03-12-2009, 11:01 PM

Calvinator

03-13-2009, 07:18 AM

Great post, brother Nick! I have heard Reformers refer to Augustine all the time and I do not find this post the least bit confusing.

doctr_of_grace

03-13-2009, 03:05 PM

This is a very confusing post. It starts out by complaining that Augustine never taught justification by faith alone but then goes on to make all kinds of bizarre accusations based on little snippets of Augustine that have little to do with the doctrine of justification by faith alone. He's accused for some unknown reason of animism and all kinds of ridiculous things because of his doctrine of the Lord's Supper. It starts off with some pretty silly equivocation:

The reader is led to believe that Augustine fully supports all that is the Roman Catholic church today when the Roman Catholic Church did not exist at the time of Augustine. His understanding of Catholic is different from the modern Roman Catholic Church's claims.

Perhaps it would be more beneficial to start threads on some of these individual topics rather than just have a bunch of unrelated accusations.
You make a good point Charles. I have seen folks pick and choose many quotes from reformed writers and claim they are saying something that is opposite of what the context is about. I have seen it many times with Calvin misquotes. I am looking at the references and seeing if in fact Augustine denied justification by faith alone. I don't believe he did.

I am sure Augustine (like all of us) has some inconsistancy in his writings. People also can change as time goes by. I know I have. Perhaps some of the snippets are earlier than others and perhaps he is capable of being out and out wrong on some of the issues. This doesn't mean we completely ignore the man or refuse to look at any of his written material.

Now RC Sproul is an animal of his own. I don't like his theology and so it didn't bother me to see Nick slam him ... But Spoul has said some truthful things and when I can agree with him I do so.

I guess it truly bothers me when you come to conclusions from snippets. It is like building an entire theological stance on one or two verses in the Bible. (Very dangerous!!) The RCC shouldn't put stuff together with bits and pieces of information and only gleening statements that agree with their POV. Nick you made valid statements but again I am not convinced this is a completely accurate critique of Augustine.

THANKS ... Jan

Saint Nicholas

03-13-2009, 10:20 PM

I am sure Augustine (like all of us) has some inconsistancy in his writings.

Jan the Gospel that is taught is either true or false but never inconsistent.
Paul the Apostle said "if anyone preaches any other gospel to you then what you have received, let him be accursed." Are inconsistent Gospels exempt from Paul's anathema?

People also can change as time goes by. I know I have.

Yes people can change if elected by God. Saul of Tarsus was changed from a teacher of salvation by works, to a teacher of salvation by an imputed righteousness. I was changed from a believer in Augustinian soteriology as taught from my youth in the RCC, to a believer, preacher, and teacher, in the Gospel of Christ. So yes people can change if God wills.

Perhaps some of the snippets are earlier than others and perhaps he is capable of being out and out wrong on some of the issues.

I am not addressing some minor issues here Jan. These issue clearly negate and are antithetical to the Gospel.

doesn't mean we completely ignore the man or refuse to look at any of his written material.

Do you completely ignore the written material of Muslims? And Why?

Nick you made valid statements but again I am not convinced this is a completely accurate critique of Augustine.

Jan, just making a statement like the above one is not an argument to disprove my critique. You must show from Augustines teachings that I am wrong. In a court of law you must have evidence to support you allegations, and likewise on this forum, if you want to be taken seriously, you must learn to dialogue and debate.

First you must show me where Augustine taught salvation, by Christ's imputed Righteousness alone.

Secondly you must show me where the doctrine of purgatory is in harmony with the Pauline gospel. And why Purgatory is necessary for justification.

Thirdly you must show me how meritorious good works is true and can save a man.

Lastly what did the Apostle Paul mean by this statement "As we have said before, so I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received let him be accursed"

To Paul, a gospel is either true or false. But never inconsistent.

In Christ,
Nicholas

wildboar

03-13-2009, 11:33 PM

To Paul, a gospel is either true or false. But never inconsistent.

The very act of sinning is contrary to the Gospel. To sin is to say that you do not really believe in God. How could you really consistently believe in an all knowing God and still sin? I know that I still sin every day. Do you?

rlhuckle

03-14-2009, 07:41 AM

Chuck,..... Chuck......

Rom 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

The Hawker

03-14-2009, 10:04 AM

Like I said before, I really need to study this subject.
However, in saying that, I have heard ministers quote Augustine like he is one to really listen to.:confused:

In saying that though, I don't remember hearing anything like some of the statements that are in Nick's article (which are obviously true). It is actually quite shocking. All the stuff I have heard Augustine saying (in the past, in the evangelical church) has been good.

However maybe at that time I just didn't know.:o

But God reveals things as He wills and in His own time! Blessed be the Name of the Lord!:)

wildboar

03-14-2009, 01:57 PM

The Hawker

03-14-2009, 02:27 PM

So are you saying that it was not Augustine that promoted certain false doctrines at specific times but the sin that dwelled in him? Or are you saying that a person can rape and murder all they want as long as the hold to the correct doctrines on paper?

We are not saying either, Charles.

wildboar

03-14-2009, 02:39 PM

We are not saying either, Charles.

Is that the royal we?:D What exactly are you saying? (or we)

Greg Winegar

03-14-2009, 03:38 PM

Is that the royal we?:D What exactly are you saying? (or we)Stowe it Chuck.

doctr_of_grace

03-14-2009, 08:33 PM

We are not saying either, Charles.
WHOA ... so is everything that Augustine wrote and taught out in the trash? I think that is a bit extreme. I can and will take the time to post quotes that clearly show he did hold to justification by faith alone. I still hold to the fact that he was a brilliant theologian.

This is a total flash back and my defenses of Sir John Calvin. I think a gentleman named Marc Carpenter went overboard on his critique of all the reformers and finished with Him, Himself and only those that 100% agreed with him as the elect of God. Are we there with this group as well? I haven't seen that from Brandan but he is the only person I really know here.

If that is the case then I guess I should simply sit down and shut up because it is a total waste of time to dialogue then.

Out for now ... Jan

The Hawker

03-15-2009, 08:44 AM

WHOA ... so is everything that Augustine wrote and taught out in the trash? I think that is a bit extreme.

I wouldn't say that everything Augustine said should be thrown in the bin, but the writings that I have seen here would cause me to doubt him in certain key elements of the faith. The bottom line is that Augustine, like all men are imperfect. So we shouldn't lift up Augustine as a "Father" of the faith.

I can and will take the time to post quotes that clearly show he did hold to justification by faith alone. I still hold to the fact that he was a brilliant theologian.

Even if you can, it won't negate the quotes that are written on this thread.

This is a total flash back and my defenses of Sir John Calvin. I think a gentleman named Marc Carpenter went overboard on his critique of all the reformers and finished with Him, Himself and only those that 100% agreed with him as the elect of God.

I would never say that we all have to be 100% agreed to be the elect of God, but as we are in this frame of flesh, we are to lovingly challenge each others thinking toward sound doctrine, as doctrine determines the direction of our lives. We have to remember that truth can stand scrutinisation. Falsehood doesn't want to be shown to be false.

Are we there with this group as well? I haven't seen that from Brandan but he is the only person I really know here.

If that is the case then I guess I should simply sit down and shut up because it is a total waste of time to dialogue then.

Out for now ... Jan

The highest form of love is drawing folk to the truth, because the truth sets the captives free. Unfortunately, false religion brings folk into bondage. We have to be on our guard against this. There are wolves that will talk us out of our freedom in Christ to bring us into bondage, through folks who subtly deny God's Sovereign power.

Saint Nicholas

03-15-2009, 10:34 AM

WHOA ... so is everything that Augustine wrote and taught out in the trash? I think that is a bit extreme. I can and will take the time to post quotes that clearly show he did hold to justification by faith alone. I still hold to the fact that he was a brilliant theologian.

Jan there you go again. You are making statements without any proof to support your statements. Do you deem theologians who teach Justification by good works brilliant?

is a total flash back and my defenses of Sir John Calvin. I think a gentleman named Marc Carpenter went overboard on his critique of all the reformers and finished with Him, Himself and only those that 100% agreed with him as the elect of God. Are we there with this group as well? I haven't seen that from Brandan but he is the only person I really know here.

Jan please address the arguments. You are attempting to introduce a "straw man" namely Marc Carpenter, then inferring some on this forum are like him in an attempt to discredit my critiques on Augustine.

that is the case then I guess I should simply sit down and shut up because it is a total waste of time to dialogue then.

Now the above statement is you own answer to the "straw man" argument you created then defeated. Jan do not think we are fools. You may pass your statements of as honest debate but it is nothing close to it. Still you have not addressed my arguments, nor even attempted to answer my inquiries.

Jan Paul the Apostle stated "that if it be of Grace it is no longer of works. And if it be of works it is no longer of Grace"

Are you suggesting that THE MASS, PENANCE, PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD, PURGATORY, PRAYERS FROM THE DEAD TO HELP THE LIVING, ETC .ETC are components of the Gospel of Christ?

Nicholas

Robert R. Higby

03-15-2009, 12:42 PM

The points where we would agree with Augustine are not different than those in which we would agree with the Augustinian segment of the Roman Catholic church. Though some RCC theologians are semi-Pelagian, there has always been an Augustinian school of thought in their midst.

I do not know of a major distinctly Protestant doctrine that Augustine held to and the RCC does not.

I myself am very bewildered at the Reformed reverence of Gus on virtually all counts; even men such as John Gill and Gordon Clark have engaged in major historical revisionism of the early centuries of Christian dogma in this regard. True, Gus stood against Pelagius and other false teachers but that does not mean he recovered the gospel lost in the great apostasy.

Maybe we should start a list here of all of the teachings of Gus that we believe are false and have been a curse to the purity of the gospel historically.

doctr_of_grace

03-15-2009, 04:11 PM

Jan the Gospel that is taught is either true or false but never inconsistent.
Paul the Apostle said \"if anyone preaches any other gospel to you then what you have received, let him be accursed.\" Are inconsistent Gospels exempt from Paul's anathema?
Is that the Gospel according to Nick or the Gospel according to Augustine or the Gospel according to the mormons or the Gospel according to who?? Nick whether you choose to believe it or not their is no perfect theology or perfect understanding of God.
Your article is not accurate. I am putting up a section for the "City of God" where Augustine clearly teaches eternal punishment.

Chapter 23.— Against Those Who are of Opinion that the Punishment Neither of the Devil Nor of Wicked Men Shall Be Eternal.

First of all, it behoves us to inquire and to recognize why the Church has not been able to tolerate the idea that promises cleansing or indulgence to the devil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm) even after the most severe and protracted punishment. For so many holy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07386a.htm) men, imbued with the spirit of the Old and New Testament (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm), did not grudge to angels (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm) of any rank or character that they should enjoy the blessedness of the heavenly kingdom after being cleansed by suffering, but rather they perceived that they could not invalidate nor evacuate the divine sentence which the Lord predicted that He would pronounce in the judgment, saying, Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm), prepared for the devil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm) and his angels (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm). Matthew 25:41 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat025.htm#verse41) For here it is evident that the devil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm) and his angels (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm) shall burn in everlasting fire (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm). And there is also that declaration in the Apocalypse, The devil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm) their deceiver was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where also are the beast and the false prophet (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07698b.htm). And they shall be tormented day and night for ever. Revelation 20:10 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/rev020.htm#verse10) In the former passage everlasting is used, in the latter for ever; and by these words Scripture is wont to mean nothing else than endless duration. And therefore no other reason, no reason more obvious and just, can be found for holding it as the fixed and immovable belief of the truest piety (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12748a.htm), that the devil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm) and his angels (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm) shall never return to the justice (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08571c.htm) and life of the saints (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm), than that Scripture, which deceives no man, says that God spared them not, and that they were condemned beforehand by Him, and cast into prisons of darkness in hell (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm), 2 Peter 2:4 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/2pe002.htm#verse4) being reserved to the judgment of the last day, when eternal fire (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm) shall receive them, in which they shall be tormented world without end. And if this be so, how can it be believed (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) that all men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm), or even some, shall be withdrawn from the endurance of punishment after some time has been spent in it? how can this be believed (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) without enervating our faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) in the eternal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05551b.htm) punishment of the devils? For if all or some of those to whom it shall be said, Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm), prepared for the devil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm) and his angels (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm), Matthew 25:41 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat025.htm#verse41) are not to be always in that fire, then what reason is there for believing that the devil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm) and his angels (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm) shall always be there? Or is perhaps the sentence of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), which is to be pronounced on wicked (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) men and angels (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm) alike, to be true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) in the case of the angels (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm), false in that of men? Plainly it will be so if the conjectures of men are to weigh more than the word of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm). But because this is absurd, they who desire to be rid of eternal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05551b.htm) punishment ought to abstain from arguing against God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), and rather, while yet there is opportunity, obey (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11181c.htm) the divine commands. Then what a fond fancy is it to suppose that eternal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05551b.htm) punishment means long continued punishment, while eternal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05551b.htm) life means life without end, since Christ in the very same passage spoke of both in similar terms in one and the same sentence, These shall go away into eternal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05551b.htm) punishment, but the righteous into life eternal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05551b.htm)! Matthew 25:46 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat025.htm#verse46) If both destinies are eternal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05551b.htm), then we must either understand both as long-continued but at last terminating, or both as endless. For they are correlative—on the one hand, punishment eternal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05551b.htm), on the other hand, life eternal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05551b.htm). And to say in one and the same sense, life eternal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05551b.htm) shall be endless, punishment eternal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05551b.htm) shall come to an end, is the height of absurdity. Wherefore, as the eternal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05551b.htm) life of the saints (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm) shall be endless, so too the eternal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05551b.htm) punishment of those who are doomed to it shall have no end.

Do you completely ignore the written material of Muslims? And Why?
So all of Augustine's writings are as deplorable as Mohammad's? Are you saying here Augustine had nothing but contempt for the truth and is not worth any study? Talk about a strawman ... hmmm

Jan, just making a statement like the above one is not an argument to disprove my critique. You must show from Augustines teachings that I am wrong. In a court of law you must have evidence to support you allegations, and likewise on this forum, if you want to be taken seriously, you must learn to dialogue and debate.
It was never my intention to critique your article or debate you. I merely made a few quick observations but you seem to want to have proof that your claims against Augustine are substantial. Well I guess you would have to find a better place to find material on him then the RCC. Of course they will find what snippets out there that go along with their doctrine. (The calvinistic universalists do the same to John Calvin). The problem with it is that they have grossly misquoted him. Read for yourself the chapters on "eternal punishment" from the City of God and you will see it for yourself. You are simply believing the above article because it so nicely fits into your hatred of the RCC. They misquoted him and you fell for it.

Purgatory was something Pope Gregory promoted not Augustine.

First you must show me where Augustine taught salvation, by Christ's imputed Righteousness alone.

Saint Augustine's Anti-Pelagian Works, A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins and on the Bap, Book 1, Chapter 18 -
Only Christ Justifies
"Therefore as by the offense of one upon all men to condemnation, even so by the justification of One upon all men unto justification of life." This "offense of one," if we are bent on "imitation," can only be the devil’s offense. Since, however, it is manifestly spoken in reference to Adam and not the devil, it follows that we have no other alternative than to understand the principle of natural propagation, and not that of imitation, to be here implied. [XIV.] Now when he says in reference to Christ, "By the justification of one," he has more expressly stated our doctrine than if he were to say, "By the righteousness of one;" inasmuch as he mentions that justification whereby Christ justifies the ungodly, and which he did not propose as an object of imitation, for He alone is capable of effecting this. Now it was quite competent for the apostle to say, and to say rightly: "Be ye imitators of me, as I also am of Christ;" but he could never say: Be ye justified by me, as I also am by Christ; — since there may be, and indeed actually are and have been, many who were righteous and worthy of imitation; but no one is righteous and a justifier but Christ alone. Whence it is said: "To the man that believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." Now if any man had it in his power confidently to declare," I justify you," it would necessarily follow that he could also say, "Believe in me." But it has never been in the power of any of the saints of God to say this except the Saint of saints, who said: "Ye believe in God, believe also in me;" so that, inasmuch as it is He that justifies the ungodly, to the man who believes in him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is imputed for righteousness.

Secondly you must show me where the doctrine of purgatory is in harmony with the Pauline gospel. And why Purgatory is necessary for justification.
I am contending that Augustine didn't hold to purgatory. It of course is NOT part of the Gospel.

Thirdly you must show me how meritorious good works is true and can save a man.
I am contending that Augustine didn't hold to a meritorious good works salvation but that our salvation is from God and God alone and not something we earn. Do you remember his battles against Pelagian heresy? Or perhaps you have never read anything on it. Or bothered to read any of Augustines defenses of the Gospel truth.

Lastly what did the Apostle Paul mean by this statement \"As we have said before, so I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received let him be accursed\"
Of course Paul must have meant anyone that disagrees with you and your way of intrepruting scripture.

To Paul, a gospel is either true or false. But never inconsistent.
Must be wonderful to have perfect knowledge and perfect theology. Does it help you sleep better at night? We are all inconsistent Nick and the all includes you.

doctr_of_grace

03-15-2009, 04:35 PM

Jan there you go again. You are making statements without any proof to support your statements. Do you deem theologians who teach Justification by good works brilliant?
I don't believe that Augustine taught "Justification by good works".

Jan please address the arguments. You are attempting to introduce a "straw man" namely Marc Carpenter, then inferring some on this forum are like him in an attempt to discredit my critiques on Augustine.
Fair enough. You have discredited yourself by quoting from an unreliable source. Namely the RCC.

Now the above statement is you own answer to the "straw man" argument you created then defeated. Jan do not think we are fools. You may pass your statements of as honest debate but it is nothing close to it. Still you have not addressed my arguments, nor even attempted to answer my inquiries. Again forgive me for my lack of debating skills. I believe I have addressed them. Hopefully I pass the review. :)

Jan Paul the Apostle stated "that if it be of Grace it is no longer of works. And if it be of works it is no longer of Grace"

Are you suggesting that THE MASS, PENANCE, PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD, PURGATORY, PRAYERS FROM THE DEAD TO HELP THE LIVING, ETC .ETC are components of the Gospel of Christ?
I am suggesting that the RCC of today wasn't the RCC of Augustine's time. You can disagree with me but I do think that history and the evolution of the "councils" will show you in error and not me. I have never stated or believe that Augustine is PERFECT or that any man is. I am merely suggesting that you are attacking someone unfairly. I believe I have shown you a few good snippets to prove my case. If you want to slam dunk me or ask me to leave I will leave gracefully. I am always open to learning new things and coming to a new understanding. When I quit doing that I may as well claim to be perfect :D.

Thanks for the challenge ... Jan

The Hawker

03-15-2009, 04:47 PM

Jan, try this link for size.

http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/augustinecatholic.htm

doctr_of_grace

03-15-2009, 05:08 PM

Jan, try this link for size.

http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/augustinecatholic.htm
Hi Hawker ... Here is what I have discovered in reading forums and articles like the one above. They can be extremely deceiving. Often times in Augustines writings he is first stating the objection and then his response. If you pull something out of the objection section then it appears that he is assenting to something when in fact he is arguing against it. The entire section must be quoted or shown not a sentence or two. I am not interested in defending the RCC. I am not even interested in defending Augustine. I have been down that road with Calvin, Owens, Edwards, Gill and many other "BRILLIANT" theologians that I have learned from and gained many great insights from. I guess my biggest beef with the above topic is that it unfairly claims that Augustine taught and believed in purgatory and justification by works. I believe much of his life and writings was dedicated to demonstrating the error of Pelagian.
I don't believe that Augustine would go along with much of what the RCC stands for today. Perhaps he would to would try to reform them as Luther and Calvin set out to do. Who can know it for it is what it is and he lived when he lived. :)

Thanks for sharing the article ... Jan

The Hawker

03-15-2009, 05:17 PM

Fair enough. Can you show me a web link that would prove that he has been misquoted?

doctr_of_grace

03-15-2009, 06:10 PM

Fair enough. Can you show me a web link that would prove that he has been misquoted? Not as easy as a weblink Hawker. You have to read it for yourself. You have to research a person's claim for yourself and decide if it accurate or not. I have a link that has Augustines writings and you can look up the quotes and decide yourself if he is being treated fairly or not. Again I am NOT claiming that Augustine is some god or infallible or perfect in his theology. Somethings he was definately wrong about some things he was spot on with. But wow to say he taught purgatory is a bit of a stretch as well as the claim that he believed in justification by works.

Here is a good resource for many of the dead saints in Christ and their writings.

http://www.ccel.org/

Brandan Kraft

03-15-2009, 06:39 PM

Let's steer this conversation away from the man "Augustine" - whether or not Augustine was anti-christ or not is irrelevant to me. He is dead and gone. Let's discuss the false teachings in the church system today.

Robert R. Higby

03-16-2009, 10:58 PM

Gus in ch. 69 of the Enchiridion: And it is not impossible that something of the same kind may take place even after this life. It is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left doubtful, whether some believers (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05769a.htm) shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire, and in proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion the goods that perish, be less or more quickly delivered from it. This cannot, however, be the case of any of those of whom it is said, that they shall not inherit the kingdom of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm), unless after suitable repentance their sins (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) be forgiven them. When I say suitable, I mean that they are not to be unfruitful in almsgiving; for Holy Scripture (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/) lays so much stress on this virtue (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15472a.htm), that our Lord tells us beforehand, that He will ascribe no merit to those on His right hand but that they abound in it, and no defect to those on His left hand but their want of it, when He shall say to the former, Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom, and to the latter, Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm).

Brandan Kraft

03-17-2009, 06:33 AM

doctr_of_grace

03-17-2009, 08:22 AM

BTW, I would add that I agree with Nick and Bob on this one - Augustine was a false teacher - there is no doubt in my mind about that. For him to be revered like he is in the reformed churches is disgusting to me. I can't say the same for Luther or Calvin - they had their faults too - but they were not quite on the same level as Old Gus who had much influence over even them (ie. Luther was an "augustinian" monk at one point). :)
First off I am not defending Augustine I am not enough of an authority on him to do so fairly. I am just wondering if he was so wrong on everything how can you possibly have any respect for either Calvin or Luther? That just doesn't make sense. They derived much of their thinking from his writings. Calvin quotes him more than any other writer. Please don't misunderstand that statement. Calvin quotes scripture more than Gus. I happen to respect both Calvin and Luther as well. Luther's book "bondage of the will" helped me to better understand our God and my lack of ability to "choose Jesus". I have assumed (big mistake on my part) that Augustine was in agreement with those reformers. Perhaps I have been mislead. I have read some of Augustine's "City of God" but not the entire work. I have also read bits and pieces on his defense against Pelgianism. I think it is in those writings that the reformers can be classified with Augustine. This may require more study on my part but currently I am gleaning through Bob's essay on Two Seeds and I have many questions. Perhaps you would indulge me in another thread.

Out for now ... Jan

GraceAmbassador

03-17-2009, 09:41 AM

BTW, I would add that I agree with Nick and Bob on this one - Augustine was a false teacher - there is no doubt in my mind about that. For him to be revered like he is in the reformed churches is disgusting to me. I can't say the same for Luther or Calvin - they had their faults too - but they were not quite on the same level as Old Gus who had much influence over even them (ie. Luther was an "augustinian" monk at one point). :)

Well Brandan, you're right!

I did not want to get into this discussion but, my phrase to the Reformed folk I know, members of the Reformed Church of America (RCA) is:

"You left the Roman Catholic Church, but the Roman Catholic Church has not left you".

There is an RCA church, whose people I REALLY LIKE, some are veritable Christians and servants of God, but their church building shares a parking lot with the Roman Catholic Church in the street behind them. I often joke with them that, if in a really bad Michigan snow storm people get disoriented and miss the RCA building and get into the RCC building on a Sunday morning Mass, they will NEVER know it; never be able to tell the difference!

I am not surprised that in some reformed circles there are so much adulation for some RCC theologians.

In the other hand, I, however, fully understand Jan's point: We have to take what they said that it is good and the rest is the rest. Paul tells us: "Examine all things; retain that which is good". Also, we need to know when a theologian said what he said (what did you know and when did you know it), because, even some of our dear brethren today, whom we respect, say things that are beyond the pale of any balanced theology.

Milt

Saint Nicholas

03-17-2009, 01:58 PM

Is that the Gospel according to Nick or the Gospel according to Augustine or the Gospel according to the mormons or the Gospel according to who?? Nick whether you choose to believe it or not their is no perfect theology or perfect understanding of God.

I agree men cannot have a "perfect understanding of God" But can Paul the Apostle along with the elect believers perfectly understand the Gospel which has been revealed?

Your article is not accurate. I am putting up a section for the "City of God" where Augustine clearly teaches eternal punishment.

Jan what does the doctrine of hell have to do with the doctrine of Justification? The gospel is about what Christ has done to Justify His people. And thats where I differ from Augustine. I certainly agree with Augustine on the doctrine of hell. And many Catholics and Protestants will be in the same hell that Augustine and I agree upon.

COLOR=darkred] [/COLOR]
So all of Augustine's writings are as deplorable as Mohammad's?

No

you saying here Augustine had nothing but contempt for the truth and is not worth any study?

No.....I have learned, and studied Augustine from my youth. And even more so in the last 27 years. That's why I have started this thread. To reveal how pew warmers have been mislead by those whom they blindly follow.

Purgatory was something Pope Gregory promoted not Augustine.

I cant believe I am hearing this!! I do agree Popes have promoted Purgatory. But to say Augustine never taught it is a denial of Augustines own words on the subject. Furthermore, Augustine did not invent the idea of a purgatory to purify the sinful soul. He mainly continued this error from pagan Greek mythological cults. Even some of the old testament Jews who were under the influence of paganism alluded to prayers for the dead and a purgatorial fire.

COLOR=darkred][/COLOR]

Saint Augustine's Anti-Pelagian Works, A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins and on the Bap, Book 1, Chapter 18 -
Only Christ Justifies
"Therefore as by the offense of one upon all men to condemnation, even so by the justification of One upon all men unto justification of life." This "offense of one," if we are bent on "imitation," can only be the devil’s offense. Since, however, it is manifestly spoken in reference to Adam and not the devil, it follows that we have no other alternative than to understand the principle of natural propagation, and not that of imitation, to be here implied. [XIV.] Now when he says in reference to Christ, "By the justification of one," he has more expressly stated our doctrine than if he were to say, "By the righteousness of one;" inasmuch as he mentions that justification whereby Christ justifies the ungodly, and which he did not propose as an object of imitation, for He alone is capable of effecting this. Now it was quite competent for the apostle to say, and to say rightly: "Be ye imitators of me, as I also am of Christ;" but he could never say: Be ye justified by me, as I also am by Christ; — since there may be, and indeed actually are and have been, many who were righteous and worthy of imitation; but no one is righteous and a justifier but Christ alone. Whence it is said: "To the man that believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." Now if any man had it in his power confidently to declare," I justify you," it would necessarily follow that he could also say, "Believe in me." But it has never been in the power of any of the saints of God to say this except the Saint of saints, who said: "Ye believe in God, believe also in me;" so that, inasmuch as it is He that justifies the ungodly, to the man who believes in him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is imputed for righteousness.

I am contending that Augustine didn't hold to purgatory. It of course is NOT part of the Gospel.

I am contending that Augustine didn't hold to a meritorious good works salvation but that our salvation is from God and God alone and not something we earn. Do you remember his battles against Pelagian heresy? Or perhaps you have never read anything on it. Or bothered to read any of Augustines defenses of the Gospel truth.

Of course Paul must have meant anyone that disagrees with you and your way of intrepruting scripture.

[COLOR=black]Must be wonderful to have perfect knowledge and perfect theology. Does it help you sleep better at night? We are all inconsistent Nick and the all includes you.

To the concerned reader who is able to discern interaction. You will see that Jan claims to be not defending Augustine. But from the very beginning has done nothing but that. What I believe she fails to understand is how like words can have different meanings. She jumps to the conclusion that since Augustine used words like Grace, Justification, salvation Etc. Etc. that he must mean the same thing as Paul the Apostle or others that hold to an imputed righteousness believe. In conclusion to this post at least you will see her anger and frustration manifested in above sentences toward me.

And I have Jan read Augustines polemics against Pelagius. The debate between these men was primarily WHAT WORKS WERE CONSIDERED MERITORIOUS? Good Works (infused and cooperated merits ala Augustine) or Dead Works (unaided by Grace ala Pelagius). I deny both these views for works we do or cooperate with will never Justify us.

For the cause of truth in Christ,
Nicholas

Saint Nicholas

03-17-2009, 02:12 PM

I don't believe that Augustine taught "Justification by good works".

Fair enough. You have discredited yourself by quoting from an unreliable source. Namely the RCC.
Again forgive me for my lack of debating skills. I believe I have addressed them. Hopefully I pass the review. :)

I am suggesting that the RCC of today wasn't the RCC of Augustine's time. You can disagree with me but I do think that history and the evolution of the "councils" will show you in error and not me. I have never stated or believe that Augustine is PERFECT or that any man is. I am merely suggesting that you are attacking someone unfairly. I believe I have shown you a few good snippets to prove my case. If you want to slam dunk me or ask me to leave I will leave gracefully. I am always open to learning new things and coming to a new understanding. When I quit doing that I may as well claim to be perfect :D.

Thanks for the challenge ... Jan

Since there were some questions asked, I only felt it necessary to at least offer one response. We will just have to disagree for now Jan.

I am not finished with furnishing more writings from the reformers themselves that are concerned with Justification.

Nicholas

wildboar

03-17-2009, 02:55 PM

There is an RCA church, whose people I REALLY LIKE, some are veritable Christians and servants of God, but their church building shares a parking lot with the Roman Catholic Church in the street behind them. I often joke with them that, if in a really bad Michigan snow storm people get disoriented and miss the RCA building and get into the RCC building on a Sunday morning Mass, they will NEVER know it; never be able to tell the difference!

Depending upon the particular churches in question they might be better off if they wandered into the RCC.

doctr_of_grace

03-17-2009, 03:06 PM

I agree men cannot have a "perfect understanding of God" But can Paul the Apostle along with the elect believers perfectly understand the Gospel which has been revealed?
Paul is not the ordinary elect believer. He was an Apostle myself or you are not. I don't believe perfectly understanding something is the same as perfect understanding. I perfectly understand the Gospel. I don't have perfect understanding of the Gospel. I don't understand God's grace at all. It is in fact a mystery to me ... how can my sin be put on Christ. How can God forgive me of my sin or how does Christ's righteousness become my righteousness. I don't understand how electricity or gravity works either. I believe you can understand those forces but not have PERFECT UNDERSTANDING of them.

No.....I have learned, and studied Augustine from my youth. And even more so in the last 27 years. That's why I have started this thread. To reveal how pew warmers have been mislead by those whom they blindly follow.
Good it is always commendable when someone studies and comes to a solid conclusion from indepth study. Augustine might be scum of the earth but he may have had a few things right. That's all I am saying.

To the concerned reader who is able to discern interaction. You will see that Jan claims to be not defending Augustine. But from the very beginning has done nothing but that. What I believe she fails to understand is how like words can have different meanings. She jumps to the conclusion that since Augustine used words like Grace, Justification, salvation Etc. Etc. that he must mean the same thing as Paul the Apostle or others that hold to an imputed righteousness believe. In conclusion to this post at least you will see her anger and frustration manifested in above sentences toward me.
Nick I was raised a Mormon so I completely understand how words have different definations for different folks ... in fact I wanted to address that issue in a thread titled "it depends ... " but hey it didn't go anywhere so I will of course agree with you on that one. To a mormon for instance the Gospel means being a mormon and living the good mormon life then maybe you will reach the celestrial kingdom and eventually evolve to being your own god in charge of your own planet. Of course this great honor is only for men. How is that one for a new and great defination of "gospel". Many terms and words depend on how the speaker is using the words or their own definations. Augustine could very well mean something other then his words indicate. Unfortunately Augustine isn't around to ask so we are all left to wonder and come to our own conclusions.

I am feeling some hostility from you so in order to maintain the integrity of this thread and future conversations I will bow out of the discussion.

Whammer

03-17-2009, 05:15 PM

This may require more study on my part but currently I am gleaning through Bob's essay on Two Seeds and I have many questions. Perhaps you would indulge me in another thread.

Out for now ... Jan I think working through the "2 seeds" teaching by Bob.........is a great place to rehash the scriptures prayerfully, it is foundational doctrinal truth, and if God shines light on it for you, it will help you unload (maybe?.........I dont really know how to measure such things though, but) some of Rome's baggage (you know, Christ taught us to take His yoke upon us which is light, and to cast all our care on Him, because He loves us).

IMO, one of the biggest burdens the reformed of any kind lay on people, as they also have not truly laid hold of the New Cov., is this idea of progressive sanctification. This takes your eyes off Christ as you are on the reformed treadmill, soon we start to compare ourselves to others (2 Cor. 10:12) and missed what Paul told us in their 1st letter.

I will agree with Psalm 23:5 and 1 Kings 17:4-6, and as Paul reminds us again "that we are sheep accounted for slaughter every day" Rom. 8:36, but we are surrounded mostly by goats who give us enough trouble many days, and of course we know by God that these are pawns of the Devil, since he holds the captive to do his will.
But.....their are those that are well acquainted with scripture, word for word but lack the understanding of any of it as they never really have found Christ in all the scriptures, well fed goats.......and are storing up more wrath and will be judged much more harshly than pagans who have never heard these things.
But the worse yet is the best disguised, the best counterfeit, the closest look alike to a sheep.........these are the leaders/Wolves. The great false prophets like Hinn, Copeland, Price are wolves, but they are easily recognized by us. It is those few out of the reformed of all their offshoots, that despite who they are, the Lord feeds us.......where we tend to err is in thinking....."no, surely this is not a raven, but a dove" since it has fed me daily for x# of time and by Gods design, so lets not turn ravens, goats, or wolves into something, they by nature, can never be but anything other than what they are, despite the Lord's instrumental use of them.

I should have held onto my "churchfathers" anti & post nicean books for this reason, like Bob did in his last post and have a quote handy, or there are online resources.............at this point in my life, still loving to read, watch and study history, IMO there are scraps and shreds of truth in their writings, but I will not acknowledge any of them as family to me. Matt. 7's broad road is filled full with those who go to destruction, the narrow road...........what not also filled? 1 Pet.4:18

Brandan's post in #25 is also great advice, true sheep are all differing members of the body though too:)

doctr_of_grace

03-17-2009, 09:24 PM

Thanks whammer for your thoughtful reply. Perhaps I will get a chance to discuss the topic "two seed" with you guys. I honestly wasn't angry or frustrated in replying to this thread. If I came across that way then I owe an apology to the group.

Bob's article has been a thought provoking essay to read.

Out for now ... Jan

Saint Nicholas

03-17-2009, 09:51 PM

Before we continue our study, I want to state exactly as to why I started this thread. I have contended for years now that what is passed off and taught in most reformed circles and non-reformed evangelical circles as pertaining to the doctrine of Justification, is in fact the Augustinian and Roman Catholic Tridentine soteriology of Grace and Justification. The proof is ECT 1 and ECT 2

The below statements show two different and opposing views of Justification. I would like those who are willing to further learn take a brief moment to engage in a simple exercise. Which views best represents your understanding of Justification? You could enter a (X) mark by the statement which best supports your understanding of Justification. There are two statements per section you could only pick one per section. I will not at this time divulge which statements are which. In the upcoming days I will. Then I will address the differences.

Luther came to believe that justification was so important that he called it 'the article of the standing or falling church'. I hope you see this importance also, for it is but the very Gospel of our salvation.

Nicholas

Example:
The sun is cold
The sun is hot X

To justify means to declare as righteous.
To justify means to make inherently righteous.

Justification comes by the crediting of Christ's righteousness.
Justification comes by an infusion of grace in the believer.

The grace of God in Christ makes the believer acceptable in God's sight.
Sanctifying grace in the believer makes him acceptable to God.

Man is justified by a righteousness totally outside of himself.
Man is justified by a righteousness which God puts within him.

Justification is God's verdict upon man in the person of Jesus Christ.
Justification is God's regenerating act in man.

The sinner is justified by Christ's credited righteousness alone.
The sinner cannot be justified by credited righteousness alone, but by righteousness poured into his heart.

Justification enables God to treat the sinner as if he were righteous.
Justification means that the sinner is really made righteous.

The believer is declared righteous because Christ, his substitute, is found righteous before God.
The believer is declared righteous because the Spirit of grace has made him righteous.

Justification is a declaration of the fact that Jesus, who stands in man's place, is righteous.
Justification is a declaration of what is a fact in the man himself.

Justification is so infinite that it cannot be reduced to an intra-human experience.
Justification is an act of grace within man.

Justification is received by faith alone.
Justification comes by faith which has become active by 'charity' ie good works.

Justification enables God to bring regeneration and sanctification to the heart of the believer.
Regenerating grace enables God to justify the believer.

Sin still remains in man's nature after justification and regeneration.
Justification wholly eradicates sin; only concupiscence and weakness remain.

The believer can claim no saving merit for good works performed by God's enabling grace.
Sanctifying grace within the believer makes his good works acceptable to God.

At all times the believer is acceptable only in the person of Christ, his substitute.
Sanctifying grace within the believer actually makes him increasingly acceptable to God.

Robert R. Higby

03-17-2009, 11:56 PM

Thanks Nick for posting this. I will let someone else be first to answer the questions because I don't want to give away your challenge!

The Council of Trent did try and accomodate both the Augustinian and Semi-Pelagian segments of the Roman Catholic Church.

This question of purgatory has me going into research now. While I know for certain that Gus taught the doctrine (The City of God, book XXI, ch. 13 & 16) temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment" (21:13) I am now looking for possible references to it in earlier 'fathers'.

Certainly, purgatory is the only logical end of the doctrine of progressive justification by internal transforming grace. If grace did not work a complete change in this life it would have to somehow be completed in the next.

Robert R. Higby

03-18-2009, 02:16 AM

Mickey

03-18-2009, 08:23 AM

To justify means to declare as righteous. X
To justify means to make inherently righteous.

Justification comes by the crediting of Christ's righteousness. X
Justification comes by an infusion of grace in the believer.

The grace of God in Christ makes the believer acceptable in God's sight. X
Sanctifying grace in the believer makes him acceptable to God.

Man is justified by a righteousness totally outside of himself. X
Man is justified by a righteousness which God puts within him.

Justification is God's verdict upon man in the person of Jesus Christ. X
Justification is God's regenerating act in man.

The sinner is justified by Christ's credited righteousness alone. X
The sinner cannot be justified by credited righteousness alone, but by righteousness poured into his heart.

Justification enables God to treat the sinner as if he were righteous. X
Justification means that the sinner is really made righteous.

The believer is declared righteous because Christ, his substitute, is found righteous before God. X
The believer is declared righteous because the Spirit of grace has made him righteous.

Justification is a declaration of the fact that Jesus, who stands in man's place, is righteous. X
Justification is a declaration of what is a fact in the man himself.

Justification is so infinite that it cannot be reduced to an intra-human experience. X (I'm not sure how this fits with glorification, since we will be made like Christ and faith and hope will no longer be necessary, I selected this one because Justification is a decree that comes from the throne of God and did not originate in time.)
Justification is an act of grace within man.

Justification is received by faith alone. X
Justification comes by faith which has become active by 'charity' ie good works.

Justification enables God to bring regeneration and sanctification to the heart of the believer. X
Regenerating grace enables God to justify the believer.

Sin still remains in man's nature after justification and regeneration. X
Justification wholly eradicates sin; only concupiscence and weakness remain.

The believer can claim no saving merit for good works performed by God's enabling grace. X
Sanctifying grace within the believer makes his good works acceptable to God.

At all times the believer is acceptable only in the person of Christ, his substitute. X
Sanctifying grace within the believer actually makes him increasingly acceptable to God.

The Hawker

03-18-2009, 12:23 PM

Hello Nicholas,

Example:
The sun is cold
The sun is hot X

To justify means to declare as righteous. X
To justify means to make inherently righteous.

Justification comes by the crediting of Christ's righteousness. X
Justification comes by an infusion of grace in the believer.

The grace of God in Christ makes the believer acceptable in God's sight. X
Sanctifying grace in the believer makes him acceptable to God.

Man is justified by a righteousness totally outside of himself. X
Man is justified by a righteousness which God puts within him.

Justification is God's verdict upon man in the person of Jesus Christ. X
Justification is God's regenerating act in man.

The sinner is justified by Christ's credited righteousness alone. X
The sinner cannot be justified by credited righteousness alone, but by righteousness poured into his heart.

Justification enables God to treat the sinner as if he were righteous. X
Justification means that the sinner is really made righteous.

The believer is declared righteous because Christ, his substitute, is found righteous before God. X
The believer is declared righteous because the Spirit of grace has made him righteous.

Justification is a declaration of the fact that Jesus, who stands in man's place, is righteous. X
Justification is a declaration of what is a fact in the man himself.

Justification is so infinite that it cannot be reduced to an intra-human experience. X
Justification is an act of grace within man.

Justification is received by faith alone. X
Justification comes by faith which has become active by 'charity' ie good works.

Justification enables God to bring regeneration and sanctification to the heart of the believer.
Regenerating grace enables God to justify the believer. X

Sin still remains in man's nature after justification and regeneration. X
Justification wholly eradicates sin; only concupiscence and weakness remain.

The believer can claim no saving merit for good works performed by God's enabling grace. X
Sanctifying grace within the believer makes his good works acceptable to God.

At all times the believer is acceptable only in the person of Christ, his substitute. X
Sanctifying grace within the believer actually makes him increasingly acceptable to God.[/quote]

Whammer

03-18-2009, 05:05 PM

Wikipedia on the history of purgatory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Purgatory

I have been persuaded for 20 years that the 'church fathers' taught the same doctrines of devils as the Pharisees before and contemporary with Christ. They departed from the apostolic teaching and went down the same road of apostasy that the non-elect Jews prior to Christ did.

Of course, we do not have any writings from early centuries after the apostles that teach the true gospel. Once the 'church' received the power of the state under Constantine, all such writings were destroyed.

Amen brother at all points here. Even those writings of like.........Clement of Alexandria who loved plato, and I think the judiazers (who called themselves christians) had a huge influence on him as he sought to unify their doctrine with Hellenistic thought. He, and his successor Origen had great effect on the eastern part of the Roman empire as they brought in a great deal of the gnostic ideas of both. After some war and persecution, other's arose like Tertullian, etc. Any writings of the elect sheep from the end of the 1st century till now, have either been destroyed or changed around and renamed to fit a particular heresy from all my research.

So by the time we get to Nicea in 325 those that voted (democratical style) were etched in as the doctrine for all christians to unite the Empire west and east, and one canon to help.........but what effect did this bring to Alexandria? One other work I would like to have seen is the Diatesarron put together by Tatian. It was a standard in many places for about 2 centuries till the Constantinian bible was thrust back thru the east and to the orientals as well. I know that Tatian had a close relationship in part with Justin Martyr (a hertic of heretics) but I still would have liked to have been able to see the blend he did, but alas, nothing of it remains.

We have from Jesus, great words of comfort thru John........

Jn 21:24-25, (NASB)
24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written, Jn 20:31-31, (NASB), 31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

SO, I understand that what we do have is sufficient......more than sufficent.
So my last thoughts follow a principle Paul chastened the Corinthians with,

1 Cor 6:1-8, (NASB)
Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints?
Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts?
Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?
So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? (the Assembly of real believers, who we can seek out in good conscience)
I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren,
but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers?
Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?
On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren.

The principle aligns with Psalm 1 as well. I myself have built on counterfeit rock in past times, and like the rest of the brethren here, to one degree or another we have been granted even clearer "eyesight", so my point is this, if I am to study "churchian history", it will be like food from the raven's mouth. If we in our own conscience consider the teachings/writings of those (in our own mind to stress this) we consider to be prophets of the darkness, having unlightened minds, preachers of a false gospel and false christ....................why hold to any doctrine they taught? Everyone who is born of the Spirit of Christ, should 1st and always consider 1 John 2:26-27/Heb. 8:11 as they prayerfully read thru scripture. And if we, with all the strenght given us by our Father, seek Jesus' fellowship and teaching, He will lead us to others who are doing the same..........worshipping in spirit and truth, because the spirit of truth will point out Christ in them........we'll not praise them, but God in Christ, and we will rejoice with them.

I know one of my blogs on Hebrews stirred up more problems than I could know, but this thread (yes I will continue to read history, Lori and I both enjoy that) and that post #24 or 26 of Brandan's heads the direction I am following. When I restarted my canon studies again after the "james" issue, I had to reconsider alot of what I thought since the reformers and sovereign gracers baptist and presbyterian groups, were my "brethren" in the past. As with the rest of you brethren, though we have come out of many cesspools, I have no fear in pushing the line on anything. I am tired of being labeled/and doing the same.

I am trying to adopt a policy of "let the dead bury the dead" attitude, though I know to one degree or another Christ has not left Himself without a witness in every century, small or large in the world..........He knows, I dont, but I continue striving to build on the ROCK, not on someone else's ideas. If I find a good deal of aggreement with a few, then we can build as neighbors on the true ROCK..........building on "church traditions" ideas of christology, ecclesiology, etc, etc may be some left over encumberances of the Devil attached to me, we are all growing, so I seek to be unencumbered by anything false, daily, same as the rest here:)

gerhard

03-19-2009, 03:20 AM

To justify means to declare as righteous.X
To justify means to make inherently righteous.

Justification comes by the crediting of Christ's righteousness.X
Justification comes by an infusion of grace in the believer.

The grace of God in Christ makes the believer acceptable in God's sight.X
Sanctifying grace in the believer makes him acceptable to God.

Man is justified by a righteousness totally outside of himself.X
Man is justified by a righteousness which God puts within him.

Justification is God's verdict upon man in the person of Jesus Christ.X
Justification is God's regenerating act in man. (Not according to the strick definition of justification. However, when a man is justified by faith, he is regenerated by the Holy Spirit. In that sense, justification is regeneration.)

The sinner is justified by Christ's credited righteousness alone.X
The sinner cannot be justified by credited righteousness alone, but by righteousness poured into his heart.

Justification enables God to treat the sinner as if he were righteous. (No, God declares the sinner righteous.)
Justification means that the sinner is really made righteous. (No, the sinner has no righteousness of his own.)

The believer is declared righteous because Christ, his substitute, is found righteous before God.X
The believer is declared righteous because the Spirit of grace has made him righteous.

Justification is a declaration of the fact that Jesus, who stands in man's place, is righteous.X
Justification is a declaration of what is a fact in the man himself.

Justification is so infinite that it cannot be reduced to an intra-human experience.X
Justification is an act of grace within man.

Justification is received by faith alone.X
Justification comes by faith which has become active by 'charity' ie good works.

Justification enables God to bring regeneration and sanctification to the heart of the believer. (No, if you juxtapose justification and regeneration, justification is broadly defined as encompassing regeneration.)
Regenerating grace enables God to justify the believer. (No, see above comment.)

Sin still remains in man's nature after justification and regeneration.X
Justification wholly eradicates sin; only concupiscence and weakness remain.

The believer can claim no saving merit for good works performed by God's enabling grace.X
Sanctifying grace within the believer makes his good works acceptable to God.

At all times the believer is acceptable only in the person of Christ, his substitute.X
Sanctifying grace within the believer actually makes him increasingly acceptable to God.

Robert R. Higby

03-19-2009, 05:08 AM

Justification comes by faith which has become active by 'charity' ie good works.

This affirmation of Trent is most at home with all aspects of Augustine's doctrine of justification that I have read in his various writings. Almsgiving is the guarantee of continued assurance of justification.

Gus affirms imputation only of guilt in terms of Adam's sin; he denies the imputation of Christ's righteousness as the sole basis of justification. Though he attributes justification to the grace of God alone, what justification consists of is progressive transformation of character and assurance based on that inward change.

Calvinator

03-19-2009, 08:57 AM

Depending upon the particular churches in question they might be better off if they wandered into the RCC.
LOL - No. I think that they would be better off if they were stuck in the parking lot, trapped in their car under a 50 ft. snow drift with no food and water, with a hungry, growling, rabid dog in the back seat with one torn out page from Romans in it's teeth.
_______________

Is this an open book test?:D

To justify means to declare as righteous.x
To justify means to make inherently righteous.

Justification comes by the crediting of Christ's righteousness.x
Justification comes by an infusion of grace in the believer.

The grace of God in Christ makes the believer acceptable in God's sight.x
Sanctifying grace in the believer makes him acceptable to God.

Man is justified by a righteousness totally outside of himself.x
Man is justified by a righteousness which God puts within him.

Justification is God's verdict upon man in the person of Jesus Christ.x
Justification is God's regenerating act in man.

The sinner is justified by Christ's credited righteousness alone.x
The sinner cannot be justified by credited righteousness alone, but by righteousness poured into his heart.

Justification enables God to treat the sinner as if he were righteous.x
Justification means that the sinner is really made righteous.

The believer is declared righteous because Christ, his substitute, is found righteous before God.x
The believer is declared righteous because the Spirit of grace has made him righteous.

Justification is a declaration of the fact that Jesus, who stands in man's place, is righteous.x
Justification is a declaration of what is a fact in the man himself.

Justification is so infinite that it cannot be reduced to an intra-human experience.x
Justification is an act of grace within man.

Justification is received by faith alone.x
Justification comes by faith which has become active by 'charity' ie good works.

Justification enables God to bring regeneration and sanctification to the heart of the believer.x
Regenerating grace enables God to justify the believer.

Sin still remains in man's nature after justification and regeneration.x
Justification wholly eradicates sin; only concupiscence and weakness remain.

The believer can claim no saving merit for good works performed by God's enabling grace.x
Sanctifying grace within the believer makes his good works acceptable to God.

At all times the believer is acceptable only in the person of Christ, his substitute.x
Sanctifying grace within the believer actually makes him increasingly acceptable to God.

GraceAmbassador

03-19-2009, 10:34 AM

LOL - No. I think that they would be better off if they were stuck in the parking lot, trapped in their car under a 50 ft. snow drift with no food and water, with a hungry, growling, rabid dog in the back seat with one torn out page from Romans in it's teeth.
_______________

My feelings exactly! Better feel cold than the eternal "heat"... LOL

Milt

GraceAmbassador

03-19-2009, 10:39 AM

Depending upon the particular churches in question they might be better off if they wandered into the RCC.

You mean "it's better to get stuck with some distant cousin than be among enemies dressed in your brother's clothes?"

You may have a point in there... you can change your distant cousin into friends, but enemies dressed in your brothers clothes may mean that they already killed your brother, stole his clothes and now are coming back for you!

In Brazil we say: better alone than in bad company!

Milt

wildboar

03-19-2009, 07:26 PM

You mean "it's better to get stuck with some distant cousin than be among enemies dressed in your brother's clothes?"

I mean you can at least hear the Gospel in the liturgy in the RCC even if its diluted by a bunch of other stuff. As for the sermons, aside from an exceptional pastor here or there in each denomination there's probably not a very good chance of hearing the Gospel at either during the sermon. At least in the RCC you don't have to worry about the pastor being a homosexual woman.

Saint Nicholas

03-19-2009, 09:43 PM

Example:
The sun is cold
The sun is hot X

To justify means to declare as righteous. X
To justify means to make inherently righteous.

Justification comes by the crediting of Christ's righteousness. X
Justification comes by an infusion of grace in the believer.

The grace of God in Christ makes the believer acceptable in God's sight. X
Sanctifying grace in the believer makes him acceptable to God.

Man is justified by a righteousness totally outside of himself. X
Man is justified by a righteousness which God puts within him.

Justification is God's verdict upon man in the person of Jesus Christ. X
Justification is God's regenerating act in man.

The sinner is justified by Christ's credited righteousness alone. X
The sinner cannot be justified by credited righteousness alone, but by righteousness poured into his heart.

Justification enables God to treat the sinner as if he were righteous. X
Justification means that the sinner is really made righteous.

The believer is declared righteous because Christ, his substitute, is found righteous before God. X
The believer is declared righteous because the Spirit of grace has made him righteous.

Justification is a declaration of the fact that Jesus, who stands in man's place, is righteous. X
Justification is a declaration of what is a fact in the man himself.

Justification is so infinite that it cannot be reduced to an intra-human experience. X
Justification is an act of grace within man.

Justification is received by faith alone. X
Justification comes by faith which has become active by 'charity' ie good works.

Justification enables God to bring regeneration and sanctification to the heart of the believer. X
Regenerating grace enables God to justify the believer.

Sin still remains in man's nature after justification and regeneration. X
Justification wholly eradicates sin; only concupiscence and weakness remain.

The believer can claim no saving merit for good works performed by God's enabling grace. X
Sanctifying grace within the believer makes his good works acceptable to God.

At all times the believer is acceptable only in the person of Christ, his substitute. X
Sanctifying grace within the believer actually makes him increasingly acceptable to God.

I have placed my answers to the above exercise. All of the bottom statements summarize and are in complete harmony with the the Council of Trent's soteriolgy on the doctrine of Justification. Since I have chosen all top X's in agreement with the Pauline and Apostolic teaching of Justification by an imputed righteousness alone, I am damned (anathema) according to Trent (Rome).

I will address each statement in future posts. For those who participated, thanks!

Nicholas

gerhard

03-20-2009, 06:29 AM

I mean you can at least hear the Gospel in the liturgy in the RCC even if its diluted by a bunch of other stuff.

Yes, most of the Roman Mass is either scripture or based on scripture. Many of the horrible abuses of the traditional Latin rite were removed by Vatican II. However, the Roman Mass remains blasphemy and an abomination to God. Eucharistic Prayer IV states, "we offer you his body and blood."

Luther's chief objection to the Roman liturgy remains valid to this day, "They made the sacrament which they should accept from God, namely, the body and blood of Christ, into a sacrifice and have offered it to the selfsame God... Furthermore, they do not regard Christ's body and blood as a sacrifice of thanksgiving, but as a sacrifice of works in which they do not thank God for His grace, but obtain merits for themselves and others and first and foremost, secure grace. Thus Christ has not won grace for us, but we want to win grace ourselves through our works by offering to God His Son's body and blood." The Roman Mass is not the gospel but an anti-gospel of human works.

GraceAmbassador

03-20-2009, 09:31 AM

Yes, most of the Roman Mass is either scripture or based on scripture. Many of the horrible abuses of the traditional Latin rite were removed by Vatican II. However, the Roman Mass remains blasphemy and an abomination to God. Eucharistic Prayer IV states, \"we offer you his body and blood.\"

Luther's chief objection to the Roman liturgy remains valid to this day, \"They made the sacrament which they should accept from God, namely, the body and blood of Christ, into a sacrifice and have offered it to the selfsame God... Furthermore, they do not regard Christ's body and blood as a sacrifice of thanksgiving, but as a sacrifice of works in which they do not thank God for His grace, but obtain merits for themselves and others and first and foremost, secure grace. Thus Christ has not won grace for us, but we want to win grace ourselves through our works by offering to God His Son's body and blood.\" The Roman Mass is not the gospel but an anti-gospel of human works.

I rejoice in the fact that we can agree on some issues.
I would suggest you would read my post "The RCC put the JUST IF in JUSTIFICATION" whose thread I do not recall. It is recent and you could search the Graceambassador's posts in my profile.

You can also read it here: http://embassyofgrace.net/blog.html which is a better version of it.

Thanks,

Milt

Robert R. Higby

03-20-2009, 02:52 PM

Calvinator

03-20-2009, 09:24 PM

My feelings exactly! Better feel cold than the eternal "heat"... LOL

Milt
Amen Milt! All things that happen in our lives are ordained of God and we (the elect) are predestined to be conformed into the image of His Son. Most of us have experienced errors of modern day religions. The elect are led into it by God and then led out at God's appointed time. the elect that is.

gerhard

03-21-2009, 03:25 AM

As I have always confessed (to my remembrance), I still affirm that any position regarding Christ's material blood as continuously and historically present in communion is a denial of his once-for-all sacrifice. Christ affirmed that his resurrection body had flesh and bones; he never affirmed that it had flesh and blood.

Long after the resurrection, Paul writes, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?" How can the cup of blessing be a communion of the blood of Christ if the resurrected Christ has no blood? Paul says the unworthy are guilty of both the body and the blood of Christ.

The present shedding of blood would imply that Christ's sacrifice is never-ending instead of once-for-all. Thus the Roman position would be logically correct in spite of all the denials.

The Roman position is both illogical and contrary to scripture. The continuing sacrifice of Christ's body and blood is a Papist invention with no foundation in scripture; however, even the Papists deny the Mass is a bloody sacrifice for sins. How can there be a continuing sacrifice for sins without the shedding of blood?

Q. 931. Is there any difference between the sacrifice of the Cross and the sacrifice of the Mass?
A. Yes; the manner in which the sacrifice is offered is different. On the Cross Christ really shed His blood and was really slain; in the Mass there is no real shedding of blood nor real death, because Christ can die no more; but the sacrifice of the Mass, through the separate consecration of the bread and the wine, represents His death on the Cross. Baltimore Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church

wildboar

03-21-2009, 06:41 AM

Most of us have experienced errors of modern day religions. The elect are led into it by God and then led out at God's appointed time. the elect that is.

Do you have any Scriptural basis for this idea that it is the ordinary practice of God to do this or is this just based on your own feelings?

Calvinator

03-21-2009, 09:41 AM

Do you have any Scriptural basis for this idea that it is the ordinary practice of God to do this or is this just based on your own feelings?
If you believe, as I do, that all thing are of God and that God predestines everything that comes to pass, would this not include false religions and our participation in them?

If Leprosy is found in your house who put it there?
Lev 14:34 When ye be come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, and I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession;

Who opens and closes the womb?
Gen 29:31 And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.

1Sa 1:5 But unto Hannah he gave a worthy portion; for he loved Hannah: but the LORD had shut up her womb.

Who subjected creation to vanity and why?
Rom 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
Rom 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

Who works all things out after the counsel of His own will?
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

The Lord declares the end from the beginning. Does He not determine the means to that end?

wildboar

03-21-2009, 09:55 AM

Calvinator:

I meant, do you have any Scriptural basis for the idea that God calls the elect into these false religions in order to call them out of them? Are there any passages that speak to this in particular?

I see examples in Scripture where people leave the Christian church because they were never really a part of it, so it would seem more Scriptural to conclude that those who leave the church are reprobates, rather than elect.

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

Eileen

03-21-2009, 10:36 AM

I see examples in Scripture where people leave the Christian church because they were never really a part of it, so it would seem more Scriptural to conclude that those who leave the church are reprobates, rather than elect.

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

Charles,

1 John 2:18-25

18 “ Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. 20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know. 21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. 24 As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. 25 This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.”

That is perhaps the most misused verse in Scripture by those who believe that the visible church is something which it is not. I’m very surprised at your use of it totally out of context. It is common for the person who wants to use it the way you have to simply quote 1 John 2:19 as some sort of membership/visible church/denomination threat to prove a person an unbeliever and I find that quite unacceptable.

If you read the verse in context you will see that those who are talked about here left because they were antichrist and did not believe the truth, the truth about Jesus Christ.

They didn’t believe the truth, instead they believed a lie. The liar denies that Jesus is the Christ and the liar denies the deity of Jesus Christ, the Son. This is the antichrist, the ones who go out from amongst the elect. It isn’t a going out from the visible church/membership, but a going out from the elect in Truth. The truth of who Christ is, the truth of the doctrine of salvation found only in Him and the simplicity of the Gospel. I think it is always beneficial to us to note when the word BUT is used for it follows as instruction to us. In this case after verse 19 it explains to us that a true believer has an anointing from the Holy One so that they cannot believe this lie. It is the anointing by the Holy Spirit which has come to us in regeneration and conversion that protects the elect from being deceived as to who Jesus Christ is and what He has done, not an anointing to be a member of the visible church.

“For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect” Matthew 24:24

Before regeneration Titus 3:3 tells us that “we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers’ lust and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another.”

“BUT, after that the kindness and love of God our Savior toward man appeared, NOT by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Titus 3:4-7

“These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” 1 John 5:13

Eileen~

GraceAmbassador

03-21-2009, 10:55 AM

19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

The red part of this verse, modifies (explains) the anterior part. John is saying that the "black part" part of this verse happened so the red part would be shown. John is actually labeling the backsliders of those days as "Antichrist" as a group!

"in order that we should know and be aware that these backsliders were not even saved in the first place, they left the Christian faith, which they never had it" (paraphrased poorly)

The passive voice is hard for some Americans and I have no idea why. Often when writing in the Word, Microsoft puts the green squiggly line under any time I write in the passive voice, which is a very good way to "modify" or explain a phrase. The red portion is written in the passive voice. The "active" voice would be "so it shows", the passive voice is that the subject is "suffering" the action of the verb and not "exercising" the action upon it.

Indeed it does not speak of "church membership", but it is undeniable that those who backslide from the Christian faith DO SO because they were never Christians anyway and in fact were ANTI CHRISTIAN.

They were not included in the "Perseverance of the Saints" if I may inject Calvinism here.

Milt

Calvinator

03-21-2009, 11:05 AM

Calvinator:

I meant, do you have any Scriptural basis for the idea that God calls the elect into these false religions in order to call them out of them? Are there any passages that speak to this in particular?
I do not have any Scripture, at least at this time, that addresses that in particular, but there are many Scriptures, used in their contense, that show that God is in sovereign control of all things, which would include false religions and our participation in them.

Do you believe that God has ordained the means to the end that He has declared?

GraceAmbassador

03-21-2009, 12:03 PM

I see examples in Scripture where people leave the Christian church because they were never really a part of it, so it would seem more Scriptural to conclude that those who leave the church are reprobates, rather than elect. (Emphasis by GA)

Hi Eileen!

May I play the matchmaker?

Well, is your misunderstanding with W.B. the fact that he uses the term: "Christian Church" and not "Christian Faith"?

Unfortunately for some people (W.B. not included perhaps) "Christian Faith" and "Christian Church" are synonymous, when in fact they are not. Because of this tradition, most Christians will use this term interchangeably and it will cause a revolt within most of us.

W.B.: Did you say "Christian Church" because you believe that was is called "Christian Church" is the same (substance and all) as the term "Christian Faith" or were you betrayed by some tradition (as all of us are sometimes)?

In my view and in the view of many defenders of the "P" in the T.U.L.I.P. 1 John 2:19 does speak about backsliders from the Christian Faith who, thus, or for this reason, left the Christian fellowship, or Ekklesia.

The idea of John is to explain that "they were antichrist, never saved, thus they left us. They may have been with us for a while but the fact that they left is evidence that they never belonged to us". They did not become anichrists because they left us; THEY LEFT US BECAUSE THEY WERE ANTICHRISTS.

It is not: "after this, therefore because of this" logical fallacy (Post hoc, ergo propter hoc). It is "this is what they were by nature and it manifested in that they left us".

The Apostle John is very good in using "us and them" through his Epistle in a way that makes it very easy for us to know to which kind of group he makes reference.

Milt

Robert R. Higby

03-21-2009, 12:56 PM

How can the cup of blessing be a communion of the blood of Christ if the resurrected Christ has no blood? Paul says the unworthy are guilty of both the body and the blood of Christ.

Because the cup of blessing is a remembrance of the death of Christ and His shed blood of atonement, which we have communion in by faith. The shed blood of Christ is historical, not a part of His resurrection body.

Paul also states that we are baptized into Christ's death by the Holy Spirit. Like the communion in His shed blood, this death that we are baptized into is historical, not present continuous (He is not continuously dying).

Eileen

03-21-2009, 01:02 PM

(Emphasis by GA)

Hi Eileen!

May I play the matchmaker?

Well, is your misunderstanding with W.B. the fact that he uses the term: "Christian Church" and not "Christian Faith"?

Unfortunately for some people (W.B. not included perhaps) "Christian Faith" and "Christian Church" are synonymous, when in fact they are not. Because of this tradition, most Christians will use this term interchangeably and it will cause a revolt within most of us.

W.B.: Did you say "Christian Church" because you believe that was is called "Christian Church" is the same (substance and all) as the term "Christian Faith" or were you betrayed by some tradition (as all of us are sometimes)?

In my view and in the view of many defenders of the "P" in the T.U.L.I.P. 1 John 2:19 does speak about backsliders from the Christian Faith who, thus, or for this reason, left the Christian fellowship, or Ekklesia.

The idea of John is to explain that "they were antichrist, never saved, thus they left us. They may have been with us for a while but the fact that they left is evidence that they never belonged to us". They did not become anichrists because they left us; THEY LEFT US BECAUSE THEY WERE ANTICHRISTS.

It is not: "after this, therefore because of this" logical fallacy (Post hoc, ergo propter hoc). It is "this is what they were by nature and it manifested in that they left us".

The Apostle John is very good in using "us and them" through his Epistle in a way that makes it very easy for us to know to which kind of group he makes reference.

Milt

Amen Milt, you are absolutely right. I’ve had to combat that mindset firsthand since leaving the ‘institutional church’ and I’m so thankful to have come to the understanding that faith doesn’t equate to ‘church’.

I think that the traditions also attempt to institutionalize water baptism (not bringing this up as a thread topic :)), the Lord’s Supper, church government, etc. and make those one and the same with faith. It is a means to control the conscience of the unenlightened but we know the Lord will teach His own the Truth in time.

Thanks for the further thoughts!
Eileen~

wildboar

03-21-2009, 11:02 PM

I do not have any Scripture, at least at this time, that addresses that in particular, but there are many Scriptures, used in their contense, that show that God is in sovereign control of all things, which would include false religions and our participation in them.

Right, but it would be the same as me saying that God predestined me to eat the french fries that I did earlier today and I assumed from your comment that you were saying something more than that. You said:

Most of us have experienced errors of modern day religions. The elect are led into it by God and then led out at God's appointed time. the elect that is.

Perhaps I misunderstood but I thought you were saying that the ordinary experience of the elect is that God leads them into a false religion and then leads them out of it at some point. I thought that you were saying that this process is almost some sort of proof that the person is elect or at least the ordinary experience of the elect person. Since God is sovereignly in control of all things couldn't he sovereignly determine to leave the person in the "false religion"?

I recently read a book that you may have heard of called The Shack. It's a very popular book and very popular in Christian circles. My manager asked me if I would like to borrow it. I had already heard some pretty bad things about it but thought it would be good to have some first-hand knowledge in case anybody ever asked me about it.

In the book the main character has an encounter with the Trinity. I don't know if you have seen anything about the book but I'm pretty sure if you read the book you would agree with me that there are some very severe false teachings in it. I plan to write a lengthy review for my blog and strangely the book is guilty of both Tritheism and modalism. But the "god" and particularly the jesus in the book are very anti-institution. The author himself has gone from being part of evangelicalism to no longer affiliating with any church at all with the claims that he doesn't think anybody would have him. In many ways I see this as the logical extension of the "Just me and Jesus" mentality of many evangelicals. I'm sure that the author thinks that he is absolutely right to stay away from these institutions and that these institutions simply do not know the truth like he does. And of course he is one of many walking around teaching all kinds of contrary things who are opposed to any kind of organized religion.

In certain church circles people think that if their congregation is growing by leaps and bounds that God must be blessing them and they must be doing everything right. In other church circles people think that if there are only a handful of people then that must mean that they are the only ones teaching the truth and that they must be doing everything right. I view the leaving the church altogether position as merely an extension of the second position. I'm the only one here and there are no disagreements and God said there would be a remnant and therefore I must be doing everything right.

But neither small nor great numbers are proof that anyone is doing anything right. I could join any number of social groups that have nothing to do with Christ that would have small or great numbers.

The rest of this is just addressed generically to other posts by other people.

Just for the moment not because I think it is unimportant but because I'd like to try to stay focused, let's ignore issues about the presence of Christ in the sacrament and look at 1 Corinthians 10. Paul talks about a koinonia in the body and blood of Christ. Koinonia is a communal participation. It's not something that can exist in a closet by yourself. Other passages such as Heb 10:25 say that the nearer that it gets to Christ returning the more important it is not to neglect the assembling of ourselves together. Other passages like Ephesians 4 speak of God appointing some to be teachers and some to be ministers, etc in the body of Christ to serve one another which means that there is some type of institution there. The decision to appoint deacons was an institutional decision. Jesus says in Matthew 28 that disciples are made by means of baptizing and teaching which implies that there are some people teaching and others being taught.

So its difficult for me to conceive based on Scripture how leaving the koinonia and leaving the assembly would be a positive thing or somehow proof of my election. There are many atheists who leave the church because they believe that they have found enlightenment.

rlhuckle

03-22-2009, 10:45 AM

Koinonia means fellowship based upon having something in common; there is koinonia based on having an institution in common and koinonia based on having the gospel in common.

Whammer

03-22-2009, 01:19 PM

If you believe, as I do, that all thing are of God and that God predestines everything that comes to pass, would this not include false religions and our participation in them?

If Leprosy is found in your house who put it there?
Lev 14:34 When ye be come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, and I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession;

Who opens and closes the womb?
Gen 29:31 And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.

1Sa 1:5 But unto Hannah he gave a worthy portion; for he loved Hannah: but the LORD had shut up her womb.

Who subjected creation to vanity and why?
Rom 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
Rom 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

Who works all things out after the counsel of His own will?
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

The Lord declares the end from the beginning. Does He not determine the means to that end?

I agree with you too, I just happened to think of a couple other verses to add like Deut. 13:3 with Isa. 63:17 could be considered to accord w/this:)

wildboar

03-22-2009, 07:00 PM

Koinonia means fellowship based upon having something in common; there is koinonia based on having an institution in common and koinonia based on having the gospel in common.

I completely agree. And you can certainly have koinonia in institution alone which is useless or you can have koinonia based upon the Gospel and institution will naturally develop.

gerhard

03-23-2009, 05:04 AM

Because the cup of blessing is a remembrance of the death of Christ and His shed blood of atonement, which we have communion in by faith. The shed blood of Christ is historical, not a part of His resurrection body.

Many who believe in the true presence of Christ's body and blood also believe that the body and blood received in communion is from the time of the crucifixion (historical) and not part of His resurrected body. They base their belief on the words of Christ, "this is my body which is broken for you...my blood which is shed for you."

Many others believe that the resurrected (living) body and blood of Christ is received. If Christ meant His crucified body and blood is received, He would have said, "This will be my body" or "This was my body..." The same words of institution are used before and after the crucifixion and resurrection.

I believe that the crucified Christ is forever a living man. It is a property of living men to have a body and blood. Whether the crucified or the resurrected Christ is received, the unworthy are guilty of the very body and blood of Christ and not just a remembrance.

Paul also states that we are baptized into Christ's death by the Holy Spirit. Like the communion in His shed blood, this death that we are baptized into is historical, not present continuous (He is not continuously dying).

But, in baptism, we are continuously dying. Our old man is crucified that a new man may come forth (Rom. 6:4). The Holy Spirit continuously crucifies our old man and returns us to our baptism and the forgiveness of sins in baptism each time He brings us to repentance and faith.

Similarly, the Holy Spirit strengthens our faith in repentance when He gives us Christ's body broken for us and His blood shed for us for the forgiveness of sins. Christ is not continuously dying but He is continuously presenting His gifts in baptism and the Supper.

GraceAmbassador

03-23-2009, 08:54 AM

Many others believe that the resurrected (living) body and blood of Christ is received. If Christ meant His crucified body and blood is received, He would have said, "This will be my body" or "This was my body..." The same words of institution are used before and after the crucifixion and resurrection.

It is okay to paraphrase, but, please, paraphrase the entire text: Jesus completes His instructions with: "Do this (drink this cup, which is the New Testament and eat my flesh...) IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME.

I don't have any problem with people who believe that there is a special "grace" bestowed upon the recipients of the bread and the wine, but Jesus instituted such as a MEMORIAL.

Christ is not continuously dying but He is continuously presenting His gifts in baptism and the Supper.

There you go! Christ is not continually dying, so His Blood is not continually shedding neither His flesh being continually broken.

I love the memorial, but I do "chew" the bread and most of the time I only use grape juice. For many, I am a sacrilege. The point is to remember what Jesus did in a special occasion (a koinonia meal) and "announce His death until He comes".

Milt

Whammer

03-23-2009, 06:15 PM

I re-read several epistles of Ignatius today, but the one to the magnesians completely set the Bishops of churches up as being in the place of Christ Himself, and that not one thing should any lay person do without consulting the bishop/bishops(plural in some cases) 1st, and futher more if the bishop were against it, so should the layperson. His Eucharistic ideas seem attractive to the RCC as well.

I know this is not about Augustine's doctrine and that Ignatius was near 3 centuries past till Augustine, but his CLERGY/laity distinction lends to those of later centuries of the Roman Church also containing the Bishop of bishops, so this thread could also be called "The churchfather's captivity of the Reformed Church". (Not that the thread actually be renamed, just a comparitive thought of my own)

Also, I didnt want to post the wiki-link as it was so long, but just the following section

Pope Zosimus
Pelagius' guilt in the eyes of the Church, however, was undecided. Pelagius wrote a letter and statement of belief showing himself to be orthodox and sent them to Innocent I. In these he articulated his beliefs so as not to contradict what the synods condemned. Zosimus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Zosimus) had become Pope by the time the letter reached Rome in 417. Zosimus was duly impressed and declared him innocent.
St. Augustine, shocked that Pelagius and Celestius were not denounced as heretics, called the Council of Carthage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage) in 418 and stated nine beliefs of the Church that Pelagianism denied:

Death came from sin, not man's physical nature.
Infants must be baptized to be cleansed from original sin.
Justifying grace covers past sins and helps avoid future sins.
The grace of Christ imparts strength and will to act out God's commandments.
No good works can come without God's grace.
We confess we are sinners because it is true, not from humility.
The saints ask for forgiveness for their own sins.
The saints also confess to be sinners because they are.
Children dying without baptism are excluded from both the Kingdom of heaven and eternal life.
Every one of these was accepted as a universal belief of the Church and all Pelagians were banished from Italy.
The last canon is no longer widely accepted; for example, current Roman Catholic Church doctrine states that children who die without baptism are entrusted to the mercy of God (CCC 1261 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3M.HTM)); thus leaving the salvation of unbaptized infants still in question.:eek::rolleyes:

The Hawker

03-23-2009, 07:09 PM

The bible says that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth. It is the gospel that saves. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. Faith is a gift. For us to believe on the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ is a miracle wrought by God Himself on His subjects. His darling children whom He chose in Christ before the foundation of this world. Imagine that.

The children who have been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.

Christ knew us in eternity before any human being ever thought of us. Christ predestined us to be on this forum talking of the wonders of His Grace before we knew anything about it.

Isn't it wonderful that while we were yet sinners He loved us? Doesn't that just blow your mind? It sure blows mine. It shows us what an awesome God that we serve.

I love how the bible speaks of God ordaining the works that we would do in His Name. You know, I believe that when God ordains works for us to do, God ALWAYS gets what He wants. The bible tells us that His commands are not grievious. There is no law to obey. Yet the Spirit teaches His own. All of His are taught by God.

Brethren, the thing I love about the gospel is that it is so simple, a child can understand it. Indeed, the bible tells us that unless we receive the Kingdom as a child, we will by no means enter therein. (Mark 10:15)

Yes it is that simple. Simple faith wrought by God for sinners.

Isn't is wonderful to know that God will save every one of His elect. There shall not be a single one lost.

It is amazing that there are men who want to tell us what the bible means and what it says, but the Lord tells us that His children will be guided in ALL truth. Not just some truth, but all truth. (John 16:13).

We have much to thank God for. We need teachers to exhort us in the truth. We have to be careful who we hear and what we hear.

The preaching of the gospel is such a weighty matter, and when done badly, is disasterous.

We need to be bowed down before God, and trust His Holy Name in ALL things.

I thank God for His Grace. Everything is in the Kingdom of God.

The faith of Jesus Christ sets the captive free. For the sake of the Kingdom, we must never be ensnared by the people who want to bring us back into bondage.

Christ saves and sets free. Religion binds and brings folk into captivity.

Thank God that we need not man's opinion of God's will, but we have God's mind and will in the Holy Writ of the bible.

PRAISE HIS GREAT AND GLORIOUS NAME!!!!!

May the Lord Bless you ALWAYS!!

Kevin :)

wildboar

03-23-2009, 08:18 PM

So let's get this straight. Somehow Reformed people are in some sort of Augustinian captivity simply because they invoke his name without ever reading him. They obviously don't teach most of the things that St. Nicholas posted as Augustine's teachings so it seems to be quite the logical leap (regardless of whether the post gives us an honest understanding of what Augustine taught) to conclude that they are somehow in bondage to Augustine. Now they are under the captivity of Ignatius who they don't even invoke? Is Ronald McDonald next? Most Reformed ministers don't even read John Calvin. They read Berkhof or Hoeksema or whatever theologian is associated with their particular branch of Reformed theology and interpret Calvin through the lens of their favorite theologian. I had a professor at a Reformed seminary once tell me that it was completely unnecessary for us to read the church fathers because Calvin had already read them for us. But now, even though they don't read the church fathers or know what they say they are somehow in captivity to them?

Mickey

03-23-2009, 10:05 PM

Greg Winegar

03-23-2009, 10:47 PM

Is Ronald McDonald next?What's the matter with Ronald? I like his burgers.

wildboar

03-24-2009, 05:38 AM

I see your point Chuck and I have seen what you said to be true. However, even though some reformed folk may not have read them personally, the ideas themselves have been parroted and passed along. Gus doesn't have to be read for his influence to infect the 'reformed church'.

What of the ideas posted have been perpetuated by the reformed churches? Apostolic succession? Transubstantiation? I can't find a single thing listed in the post that corresponds to what Reformed churches teach today.

Was St. Augustine Catholic?
YES!
\"I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.\"
(Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental, 5,6)

What happened to believing in the Gospel as moved by the Holy Spirit?

Catholic Understanding of the Eucharist
\"That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.\" (St. Augustine, Sermons 227)

Pure animism, idolatry,pseudo cannibalism, and to literally drink blood?? You can see full blown sacramental ism even at that point in history. To bad most reformers did not purge that out also. The Augustinian influence was to great for them at that time. God did not intend for the reformation to be completed by a few individuals, but rather continued to enlighten His elect people throughout the subsequent centuries to complete the task and restore the pure pristine Pauline Gospel of Justification by Grace Alone.

\"The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY.\" (St. Augustine, Sermons 234:2)
A piece of bread still looks like a piece of bread no matter what priest craft is performed on an alter. We recognize Christ through the gift of faith alone.

\"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.\" (St. Augustine, Sermons 272)

So faith now transforms the literal bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. Pure occult superstition and mysticism.

\"How this ['And he was carried in his own hands'] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: 'THIS IS MY BODY.' FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS.\" (St. Augustine, Psalms 33:1:10)
The Priest and the Mass
\"Christ is both the Priest, OFFERING Himself, and Himself the Victim.

Augustine should have stopped there. But he continues only to drown in mysticism below.

He willed that the SACRAMENTAL SIGN of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to OFFER herself through Him.\" (St. Augustine, City of God 10:20)
\"By those sacrifices of the Old Law, this one Sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true remission of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof.\" (St. Augustine, Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57)
\"...I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING.\" (St. Augustine, Psalms 98:9)

Augustine pulls no punches here. The same literal flesh Christ took from Mary is the same literal flesh that is to eaten.

The Mass, The Eucharist and Purgatory:
\"But by the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the SALVIFIC SACRIFICE, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH OBSERVES THIS PRACTICE WHICH WAS HANDED DOWN BY THE FATHERS

See the problem? If Augustine would have followed the Apostles teachings rather than the heretical fathers, he would not have made such a statement.

that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself [part of the Mass mentions the Saints who have \"gone before us\"]; and the Sacrifice is OFFERED also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, the works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death.\" (St. Augustine, Sermons 172:2)

From Augustine's understanding of Grace, some who lived a meritorious life have a chance in that prayers for them may aid their cause only with the help of the sacrifice of the mass. Christ's one time historical death and resurrection was not finished and complete. Christ must continuously suffer on the alters of Rome. And as I said before, there are those who defend this man Augustine.

\"There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for other dead who are remembered. It is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended\" (Sermons 159:1 [A.D. 411]).
\"Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by 'some both here and hereafter, but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment\" (The City of God 21:13 [A.D. 419]).

According to Augustine's understanding, there can be those who were not bad enough to come to eternal punishments, and not good enough to enter heaven. Prayers for these dead individuals may help their cause and relieve their suffering. Once their sins are cleansed, they can be with God. Where is the Gospel in all of this?

\"The prayer either of the Church herself or of pious individuals is heard on behalf of certain of the dead, but it is heard for those who, having been regenerated in Christ, did not for the rest of their life in the body do such wickedness that they might be judged unworthy of such mercy [as prayer], nor who yet lived so well that it might be supposed they have no need of such mercy [as prayer]\" (ibid., 21:24:2).

Again more of the same. Is this the effects of the Gospel? Augustine has no clue what the Gospel is. Even today there are those on this forum who have defended prayers for the dead. They too have no clue to what the Gospel is all about.

\"That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain PURGATORIAL FIRE\" (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69 [A.D. 421]).

The Apostles of Christ have never taught this nonsense, nor is there a shred of evidence in the whole of the inspired scriptures.

\"The time which interposes between the death of a man and the final resurrection holds souls in hidden retreats, accordingly as each is deserving of rest or of hardship, in view of what it merited when it was living in the flesh. Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator [Mass] is offered for them, or when alms are given in the Church. But these things are of profit to those who, when they were alive, merited that they might afterward be able to be helped by these things. There is a certain manner of living, neither so good that there is no need of these helps after death, nor yet so wicked that these helps are of no avail after death\" (ibid., 29:109).

The key to understanding Augustine is understanding his use of the word MERIT.
Augustine did not hold to the Pelagian view of MERIT in which a soul unaided by Grace can earn justification and righteousness., but rather taught that a soul that cooperates with Grace can in fact MERIT eternal life if he performs adequately enough. The soul with the assist of Grace can perform enough good works and penance to achieve and satisfy the righteousness God requires for Justification.

Augustine on Mary

Mary, a disciple of Christ
\"But look here, my brothers and sisters, concentrate more, I beg you, on what follows, concentrate more on what Christ the Lord said as he stretched out his hand over his disciples: This is my mother and these are my brothers; and whoever does the will of my Father who sent me, that person is a brother to me and a sister and a mother (Mt 12:49-50). Didn't the Virgin Mary do the will of the Father? I mean, she believed by faith, she conceived by faith, she was chosen to be the one from whom salvation in the very midst of the human race would be born for us, she was created by Christ before Christ was created in her. Yes, of course, holy Mary did the will of the Father. And therefore it means more for Mary to have been a disciple of Christ than to have been the mother of Christ. It means more for her, an altogether greater blessing, to have been Christ's disciple than to have been Christ's mother. That is why Mary was blessed, because even before she gave him birth, she bore her teacher in her womb.
Just see if it isn't as I say. While the Lord was passing by, performing divine miracles, with the crowds following him, a woman said: Fortunate is the womb that bore you. And how did the Lord answer, to show that good fortune is not really to be sought in mere family ties? Rather blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it (Lk 11:27-28). So that is why Mary, too, is blessed, because she heard the word of God and kept it. She kept truth safe in her mind even better than she kept flesh safe in her womb. Christ is truth, Christ is flesh; Christ as truth was in Mary's mind, Christ as flesh in Mary's womb; that which is in the mind is greater than what is carried in the womb.
Mary is holy, Mary is blessed, but the Church is something better than the Virgin Mary. Why? Because Mary is part of the Church, a holy member, a quite exceptional member, the supremely wonderful member, but still a member of the whole body. That being so, it follows that the body is something greater than the member. The Lord is the head, and the whole Christ is head and body. How shall I put it? We have a divine head, we have God as our head.\" (Sermon 72/A, 7 source: http://www.vatican.va/spirit/documen...ostino_en.html)
\"It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?\" (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411] source: http://www.catholic.com/ANSWERS/tracts/_virgint.htm).
Reference to Ever Virgin Compared/Contrasted to Eve
The hoped-for day of the blessed and venerable Mary ever a Virgin has now come; therefore let our earth rejoice with great gladness, illuminated by the birth of so great a Virgin. For she is the flower of the field from which came forth the priceless lily of the valley; by her child-bearing the nature inherited from our first parents is changed, their fault wiped out. In her that sentence passed on Eve was remitted which said, \"In sorrow shall you bring forth children,\" for Mary brought forth the Lord in joy.
Eve sorrowed, but Mary exulted; Eve carried weeping in her womb, but Mary carried joy, for Eve brought forth a sinner, but Mary innocence itself. The mother of our race brought punishment into the world, but the Mother of our Lord brought salvation into the world. Eve was the source of sin, Mary the source of merit. Eve by killing was a hindrance, Mary by giving life was a help. Eve wounded, Mary healed. Obedience takes the place of disobedience, faith makes up for faithlessness.
Mary may now play on her instruments, the Mother strike the cymbals with swift fingers. The joyful choruses may sound out and songs alternate with sweet harmonies. Hear, then, how she sings, she who leads our chorus. For she say, \"My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior; because He has regarded the lowliness of His handmaid; for, behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed; because He who is mighty has done great things for me.\" And so the miraculous new birth takes away the cause of our increasing burden of sin, and Mary's song puts an end to the weeping of Eve.*
(From the Second Nocturn of Matins of the feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary)*
(Source: http://members.tripod.com/cathdev/virginmary.html)

The way in which Augustine exalts Mary the mother of Jesus is very mild in comparison to what Mariology has evolved into by the Roman Church today. However the very seeds of adoration and devotion to Mary are clearly seen in the above writings of Augustine. Some Reformed churches today are now involved in mild forms of devotion to Mary. My next door neighbor who moved last year, is a retired LCMS pastor. Him and I on occasion over the past years have had many theological discussions. His church had mild and subtle forms of Mary worship. When he told me that I was floored!

Augustine on Apostolic Succession
\"There are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church's] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15-17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called 'Catholic,' when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house\" (Against the Letter of Mani Called 'The Foundation' 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

The above describes the development of Rome into a cult status. Augustine claimed that this Roman church alone is the only true church of God. One characteristic in defining a cult, is that a group would claim that they and they alone are the only true church.

\"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.' Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement . . . In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found\" (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

Augustine's usage of Peter as the rock is just another proof in the exaltation of the man centered religion Augustine promulgated. Later I will present my paper on who the “ROCK” is.

Augustine on Baptismal Regeneration

\"It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated ... when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, `Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents' or `by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,' but, `Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.' The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam\" (Letters 98:2 [A.D. 412]).
\"Baptism washes away all, absolutely all, our sins, whether of deed, word, or thought, whether sins original or added, whether knowingly or unknowingly contracted\" (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 3:3:5 [A.D. 420]).

According to Augustine, the literal water of the baptismal font as so performed in the liturgy of baptism by the priest (minister) so enjoins the Holy Spirit to effect regeneration. According to Augustine in many other of his writings, this regeneration (born again) is not a guarantee of a complete salvation, but rather a gracious assistance, a renewed ability to cooperate with the Holy Spirit (grace), in meriting justification and salvation.

Augustine on the necessity of Baptism for Salvation
\"There are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptism, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance; yet God does not forgive sins except to the baptized\" (Sermons to Catechumens, on the Creed 7:15 [A.D. 395]).

Clearly a denial of the Gospel! There is only ONE way in which sins are forgiven. By the life, death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ alone! Water, prayers, and penance, are works. “If it be of works then it is no longer of Grace”

\"[According to] Apostolic Tradition ... the Churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal. This is the witness of Scripture too\" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:24:34 [A.D. 412]).

More of the same heresy. Can you now see why the world plunged into the Dark Ages, then Medieval Ages? The souls of men have been subjected to the bondages of the Papal Church and it's clergy as necessary functions (works) to secure their salvation.

However, Augustine allowed for exceptions, what he called baptism of desire or blood (martyrdom).
\"That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by suffering is supported by a substantial argument which the same blessed Cyprian draws from the circumstance of the thief, to whom, although not baptized, it was said, `Today you shall be with me in paradise' [Luke 23:43]. Considering this over and over again, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply for that which is lacking by way of baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart [i.e., baptism of desire] if, perhaps, because of the circumstances of the time, recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism\" (ibid., 4:22:29).

How gracious of Augustine to have given mankind an exception to the rule. But his exception is somewhat confounded, for it places the ground and merit of satisfaction within mans desire. Still this is man centered and not Christ centered.

Augustine on the Communion of Saints and Intercession
\"A Christian people celebrates together in religious solemnity the memorials of the martyrs, both to encourage their being imitated and so that it can share in their merits and be aided by their prayers\" (Against Faustus the Manichean [A.D. 400]).

There is that Merit language again. The faithful can use the merits (works) of another (the dead) to help increase their Justification. And vice versa, the living can pray for the dead to help them get out of Purgatory quicker.

\"At the Lord's table we do not commemorate martyrs in the same way that we do others who rest in peace so as to pray for them, but rather that they may pray for us that we may follow in their footsteps\" (Homilies on John 84 [A.D. 416]).
\"For even now miracles are wrought in the name of Christ, whether by his sacraments or by the prayers or relics of his saints ... The miracle which was wrought at Milan when I was there ... [and when people] had gathered to the bodies of the martyrs Protasius and Gervasius, which had long lain concealed and unknown but where now made known to the bishop Ambrose in a dream and discovered by him\" (City of God 22:8 [A.D. 419]).

Pure superstition and occultism! Miracles wrought by relics? When I was a very young boy, born and raised in the Catholic Church, I possessed four very small boxes 1”x1” containing pieces of “wood” “bones” “clothes” and “hair” from so-called dead saints. These relics, along with the scapular, and the St. Christopher medal I wore daily, were to protect and ward off evil spirits in my life. I thank God daily for delivering from the occult Augustinian Roman Church.

Augustine on Purgatory and Praying for the Departed
\"That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire\" (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69 [A.D. 421]).
\"We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place\" (The Care to be Had for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421]).

The above two quotes should leave no doubt in the mind of a true believer in Christ that Augustine had no clue at all of what the Gospel is. And yet many even to this day exalt Augustine as a champion of the Gospel. Only Papists and Papal sympathizers defend Augustine.

Augustine on the Sacrament of Penance
\"When you shall have been baptized, keep to a good life in the commandments of God so that you may preserve your baptism to the very end. I do not tell you that you will live here without sin, but they are venial sins which this life is never without. Baptism was instituted for all sins. For light sins, without which we cannot live, prayer was instituted. ... But do not commit those sins on account of which you would have to be separated from the body of Christ. Perish the thought! For those whom you see doing penance have committed crimes, either adultery or some other enormities. That is why they are doing penance. If their sins were light, daily prayer would suffice to blot them out ... In the Church, therefore, there are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptisms, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance\" (Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15, 8:16 [A.D. 395]).
\"I realize what the incontinent can say: ... that if a man, accusing his wife of adultery, kills her, this sin, since it is finished and does not perdure in him [i.e., since he does not keep committing it], if it is committed by a catechumen, is absolved in baptism, and if it is done by one who is baptized, it is healed by penance and reconciliation\" (Adulterous Marriages 2:16:16 [A.D. 419]).

Mankind (baptized that is) can by performing works of penance have their sins forgiven. Again another illustration of a man centered salvation. No imputed righteousness at all in Augustine's scheme.
Augustine on the deuterocanonicals or Apocrypha
\"The whole canon of the Scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth ... then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon ... [T]here are also others too, of a different order ... such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras ... Then there are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon ... But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called `of Solomon' because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them\" (Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).

Pagans will stop at nothing to justify their Pagan, mystical, and superstitious practices.

Augustine on The Rock / Papacy of St. Peter
“Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.”*
Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18 (A.D. 393),GCC 51
“Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God is able to forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church.”*
Christian Combat, 31:33(A.D. 397), in JUR,3:51
“For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of ‘mountain men,’ or Cutzupits, by which they were known.”*
To Generosus, Epistle 53:2(A.D. 400), in NPNF1,I:298
“When, therefore, He had said to His disciples, ‘Will ye also go away?” Peter, that Rock, answered with the voice of all, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.’ “
Homilies on John, Tract 11:5(A.D. 417), in NPNF1,VII:76
“And the Lord, to him to whom a little before He had said, ‘Blessed thou art, and upon this Rock I will build my Church,’ saith, ‘Go back behind, Satan, an offence thou art to Me.’ Why therefore ‘Satan’ is he, that a little before was ‘blessed,’ and a ‘Rock’ ?”
In Psalms, 56[55]:14[PL 36, 656] (A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:223
“Peter, who had confessed Him as the Son of God, and in that confession had been called the rock upon which the Church should be built.”
In Psalms, 69:4[PL 36, 869] (A.D. 418), in Butler, 251
“And if a Jew asks us why we do that, we sound from the rock, we say, This Peter did, this Paul did: from the midst of the rocks we give our voice. But that rock, Peter himself, that great mountain, when he prayed and saw that vision, was watered from above.”
In Psalms, 104[103]:16(A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:513
“[In my first book against Donatus] I mentioned somewhere with reference to the apostle Peter that ‘the Church is founded upon him as upon a rock.’ This meaning is also sung by many lips in the lines of blessed Ambrose, where, speaking of the domestic cock, he says: ‘When it crows, he, the rock of the Church, absolves from sin.’ But I realize that I have since frequently explained the words of our Lord: ‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church’, to the effect that they should be understood as referring to him Peter confessed when he said: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God’, and as meaning that Peter having been named after this rock, figured the person of the Church, which is built upon this rock and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For what was said to him was not ‘Thou art rock’, but ‘Thou art Peter’. But the rock was Christ, having confessed whom(even as the whole Church confesses) Simon was named Peter. Which of these interpretations is more likely to be correct, let the reader choose.”*
Retractations,1:21(A.D. 427),in GILES, 177
(above papacy citations qtd in: http://www.catholic-convert.com/webs...newebster.html )

And they don't teach what was taught at the Council of Carthage either so it just doesn't make any sense.

It would be like me saying Mickey you are clearly an alcoholic. It's obvious to everyone that you are in bondage to alcohol. Here are my reasons:

1. You speak highly of your great grandfather.
2. Your great grandfather owned a tobacco farm.
3. Your great grandfather fought with the confederates in the civil war.

Therefore you are an alcoholic.

gerhard

03-24-2009, 07:01 AM

It is okay to paraphrase, but, please, paraphrase the entire text: Jesus completes His instructions with: "Do this (drink this cup, which is the New Testament and eat my flesh...) IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME.

I don't have any problem with people who believe that there is a special "grace" bestowed upon the recipients of the bread and the wine, but Jesus instituted such as a MEMORIAL.

Yes, the Supper is a memorial. He bequeaths us His body and blood for the forgiveness of sins each time His words are spoken.

There you go! Christ is not continually dying, so His Blood is not continually shedding neither His flesh being continually broken.

I love the memorial, but I do "chew" the bread and most of the time I only use grape juice. For many, I am a sacrilege. The point is to remember what Jesus did in a special occasion (a koinonia meal) and "announce His death until He comes".

There is nothing in scripture about "chewing" the body of Christ in communion. Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation are human inventions. However, even the Papists reject the shedding of His blood (see my earlier comment). They also believe every particle of the host and in the cup is the indivisible Christ, therefore, unbreakable.

Papists and Primitive Baptists have very different views on the meaning of the Supper. However, they both follow Christ words "This do. . ." to the letter by using only unleavened bread and grape wine.

wildboar

03-31-2009, 10:31 PM

GraceAmbassador

03-31-2009, 11:33 PM

Today I was listening to a podcast from Concordia Theological Seminary on iTunes from a series they have called the Lutheran Mind. The series itself isn't very impressive but the lecture I listened to today was about justification. The speaker distinguished between Augustine's concept of justification in which a person is made righteous by the grace of God and Luther's concept that a person is declared righteous by the grace of God. So at least us Lutherans aren't in the alleged Augustinian captivity that the Reformed supposedly are.:D

Well, Congratulations! Perhaps there is such a thing as a true Lutheran today. There are two reformers that I read, respect, refer and repeat: Calvin and Luther. I think that the Lutheran church today, IN GENERAL, apart from some individual exceptions, is neither Calvin nor Luther. The only aspect that makes them to be called Protestants is that they protest against any type of main-stream conservatism on Biblical views; against this they protest. But, then again, I don't know too many Lutherans. I don't want to!

Milt

Saint Nicholas

04-01-2009, 07:10 AM

What good is a Justification (declaration/verdict of righteousness) that is dependent and grounded on an individuals ability to believe (faith)?

The LCMS teaches that imputation can be lost or given away by an individuals unwillingness to believe anymore. Hence they are alike with Augustine and the other heretics who promulgate a justification (whether imputed or infused) that is grounded on man's faith.

Please see thread "Election according to the LCMS"

I have been extremely busy the past week or so and am catching up a bit.

Bryan (whammer) made a good observation in that this thread should be so entitled "The church-fathers captivity of the Reformed Church". That is true.

The church fathers (they are not my fathers) destroyed the Gospel of Christ, and built for themselves a monarchial ecclesiastical clergy system that ruined, destroyed, tortured, and killed lives. To this very day this evil so called Christian ecclessiastical system started by the "fathers" is in full stride to further destroy the souls of men.

Read ECT 1 , ECT2, Evangelical and Catholics together, and Lutherans and Catholics together.

They the children are thirsty to come home to mother. To suckle the poisen from her breasts

Nicholas

wildboar

04-01-2009, 07:56 AM

Well, Congratulations! Perhaps there is such a thing as a true Lutheran today. There are two reformers that I read, respect, refer and repeat: Calvin and Luther. I think that the Lutheran church today, IN GENERAL, apart from some individual exceptions, is neither Calvin nor Luther. The only aspect that makes them to be called Protestants is that they protest against any type of main-stream conservatism on Biblical views; against this they protest. But, then again, I don't know too many Lutherans. I don't want to!

So you don't know many Lutherans but are firmly convinced in your mind about what most of them must teach....interesting. Where does this conviction come from? Some inner working of the Holy Spirit telling you what every denomination believes?

What good is a Justification (declaration/verdict of righteousness) that is dependent and grounded on an individuals ability to believe (faith)?

The LCMS teaches that imputation can be lost or given away by an individuals unwillingness to believe anymore. Hence they are alike with Augustine and the other heretics who promulgate a justification (whether imputed or infused) that is grounded on man's faith.

Please see thread "Election according to the LCMS"

So, I'm supposed to base what the LCMS believes about justification not on synodical documents or confessions or what ministers actually teach but what people on predestinarian.net say in a thread?

The LCMS completely denies that faith is the grounds of justification. The work of Christ is the grounds for justification. Faith is the means by which a person lays hold of justification and is a gift of God. Some people do fall away from the faith but the answer to the question of why is a mystery.

Now you can disagree with the teaching of the LCMS on this issue but there is no need to misrepresent it. Your representation of the teaching of the LCMS is a lie.

GraceAmbassador

04-01-2009, 11:11 PM

So you don't know many Lutherans but are firmly convinced in your mind about what most of them must teach....interesting. Where does this conviction come from? Some inner working of the Holy Spirit telling you what every denomination believes?

Congratulations again! You noticed an contradiction in my statement! That's brilliant.

However, you know that we don't need to know an "individual" who identifies himself as belonging to a group to know what he believes if he really belongs to that group, uh?
I don't know many Jehovah Witness but I don't need the inner working of the Holy Spirit to know what they believe. I know what most, if not all J.W. teach even not knowing one.

I don't know many homosexuals, but I know what they think and teach.
I don't know many Mormons, but I know what they think and teach.
I don't know many... the list could go on and on.

By the way, you don't imagine for one second that you think or suspect that the beliefs of the Lutheran Church are secret do you?

My point was to exalt what you mentioned in your post as a Lutheran position, which I really believe is worthy of praise if taken as face value. Even you, who were once a Protestant Reformed, then a United Protestant Reformed, and a few other protestant denominations, must know that many Lutherans today have no identity with what Luther taught, right?

Milt

Robert R. Higby

04-02-2009, 03:38 AM

gerhard

04-02-2009, 06:38 AM

Some people do fall away from the faith but the answer to the question of why is a mystery.

Then it is all a joke. If some fall away from true faith, the gospel is devoid of power and God's election for many is a cruel joke that can't be understood --very similar to the notions of mystery religions. Such a God in this respect is akin to the heathen deities, not that of biblical revelation. He would be one who plays mysterious games of GOTCHA! with men.

If there are no mysteries according to Predestinarian doctrine, why are some elect and others reprobate?

Also, according to all the responses to Saint Nicholas' statements on justification except mine, "Justification enables God to treat the sinner as if he were righteous. . .Justification enables God to bring regeneration and sanctification to the heart of the believer." If God is all powerful, why does God need to be enabled to do anything He has determined to do?

On the issue of justification by inward transformation--yes, Lutheran theologians freely confess the errors of Augustine and the Reformed ignore them ENTIRELY. That is the tragic fact of generations in the history of dogma.

The Book of Concord contain all the confessions of the Lutheran theologians. Can you give a citation from the Book of Concord that supports justification by inward transformation? I can give a Reformed confession that supports that view:

This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from any thing at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it. Westminster Confession, Chapter X

Eileen

04-02-2009, 08:54 AM

Some people do fall away from the faith but the answer to the question of why is a mystery.

Then it is all a joke. If some fall away from true faith, the gospel is devoid of power and God's election for many is a cruel joke that can't be understood --very similar to the notions of mystery religions. Such a God in this respect is akin to the heathen deities, not that of biblical revelation. He would be one who plays mysterious games of GOTCHA! with men.

I, for one, know MANY Lutherans and have had many friends among them! I have been personally confronted as much by their perspective as that of any other Protestant sect. But that does not make my observations about their errors any more timely or relevant than those of Milt. One does not have to stick his head in the sewer to know that it stinks!

On the issue of justification by inward transformation--yes, Lutheran theologians freely confess the errors of Augustine and the Reformed ignore them ENTIRELY. That is the tragic fact of generations in the history of dogma.

Thanks Bob, I’m wondering if Romans 11:29 “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance” would be applicable to this kind of thinking of the falling away from faith that many have. Any who are truly called will be kept because God does not change His doings ever!!

Correlated with that wouldn’t the seeds passage in Matthew 13, and especially verse 12: “For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath” speak basically to the same thing. Those who are truly called in the grace of God will be given more (abundance) and those who don’t have, what they ‘seemed to have’ will be taken away. This would also speak to a positive reprobation too because that is the purpose of the parables, or so it seems.

Eileen~

GraceAmbassador

04-02-2009, 09:37 AM

This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from any thing at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it. Westminster Confession, Chapter X

Excuse me, but the quote above does not teach that the "quickening" of the Holy Spirit and the "enabling" to respond to His call is THE BASIS, the FOUNDATION of Salvation. I do believe here that the issue discussed is whether faith is the BASIS or the FOUNDATION by which God saves and not CHRIST's word.

By the way, I can speak for me here but also know that others admire, respect and refer to, the Major Confessions without necessarily elevating them to the level of an inerrant or infallible document.

My comment to WildBoar was in no way an indictment on Luther's teaching. The more I read the background wherein, or whereon, Luther developed his opposition to the RCC and ultimately protested against it, including but not limited to the Justification issue, the more I consider the man one of the heroes of the history of humanity. An imperfect vessel, being used so mightily of God to veritably change the course of Christianity.
My concern is that, as I read and familiarize myself with what Lutherans teach today, (again, without attacking individuals and using the fallacy of generalization), and comparing such teachings with the writings of Luther, I found grave "accommodations" for liberalism and a regress in terms of the basis for justification towards something akin to infusion.

Now, before W.B. defends his denominations, equally to the way he defended his former denominations, allow me to point that I admit that this is common in every denomination that claims to stick to the teaching of a revered Reformer: They also depart, misinterpret, mislead, misunderstand intentionally, misuse and misquote their teacher. The example is a major reformed denomination that now changed his entire body of the doctrine of Justification to adhere to the New Perspective on Paul.

We're all guilty of that sometime. I remember an article in the past in another forum that probably Bob remembers, where I showed that most of us will be, or have been, and will be again, once or twice, a heretic. But thank God for His Grace in giving us the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. We don't have to remain in our error.

Milt

wildboar

04-02-2009, 10:30 AM

Congratulations again! You noticed an contradiction in my statement! That's brilliant.

However, you know that we don't need to know an "individual" who identifies himself as belonging to a group to know what he believes if he really belongs to that group, uh?
I don't know many Jehovah Witness but I don't need the inner working of the Holy Spirit to know what they believe. I know what most, if not all J.W. teach even not knowing one.

I don't know many homosexuals, but I know what they think and teach.
I don't know many Mormons, but I know what they think and teach.
I don't know many... the list could go on and on.

By the way, you don't imagine for one second that you think or suspect that the beliefs of the Lutheran Church are secret do you?

The teachings of a particular group can be determined by looking at their body of teachings. In the case of the Lutheran churches a person's best bet would be to consult the Book of Concord. My mother-in-law is a Jehovah's Witness but based upon her own behavior I would never use her as a guide for what JW's teach. Your previous post seemed to suggest that all your knowledge of Lutheranism was based on an observation of a small number of unnamed people who supposedly went by the name of Lutheran. You wrote:

There are two reformers that I read, respect, refer and repeat: Calvin and Luther. I think that the Lutheran church today, IN GENERAL, apart from some individual exceptions, is neither Calvin nor Luther. The only aspect that makes them to be called Protestants is that they protest against any type of main-stream conservatism on Biblical views; against this they protest. But, then again, I don't know too many Lutherans. I don't want to!

You still have yet to produce any quotations from confessional documnents, synodical documents, or even actual Lutherans to back up your assertions. So your statements amount to nothing more than backbiting and slander.

My point was to exalt what you mentioned in your post as a Lutheran position, which I really believe is worthy of praise if taken as face value. Even you, who were once a Protestant Reformed, then a United Protestant Reformed, and a few other protestant denominations, must know that many Lutherans today have no identity with what Luther taught, right?

It depends on what particular issue you are talking about. All these vague statements are not helpful. I don't know how you could prove the statement. It is a fact that the ELCA which is the largest so-called Lutheran denomination has in large part abandoned the Book of Concord but in those instances they cease to be Lutheran. Being Lutheran does not mean adhering to everything that Luther said (which would not be a good thing) but refers to adherence to the Book of Concord.

Then it is all a joke. If some fall away from true faith, the gospel is devoid of power and God's election for many is a cruel joke that can't be understood --very similar to the notions of mystery religions. Such a God in this respect is akin to the heathen deities, not that of biblical revelation. He would be one who plays mysterious games of GOTCHA! with men.

I, for one, know MANY Lutherans and have had many friends among them! I have been personally confronted as much by their perspective as that of any other Protestant sect. But that does not make my observations about their errors any more timely or relevant than those of Milt. One does not have to stick his head in the sewer to know that it stinks!

The wisdom of God is foolishness to man.

On the issue of justification by inward transformation--yes, Lutheran theologians freely confess the errors of Augustine and the Reformed ignore them ENTIRELY. That is the tragic fact of generations in the history of dogma.

This is just more lying. I could produce thousands of lectures, statements from confessional documents, sermon tapes, and whatever else and you would still be shutting your ears like a child and yelling and saying you can't hear me and continuing to yell that Lutherans teach the errors of Augustine when it comes to justification.

And yet one of you pnet fellows must be wrong since Nicholas says that the Reformed Churches are in captivity to Augustine's errors of infused righteousness and you make the claim that the Reformed ignore it.

Robert R. Higby

04-02-2009, 02:24 PM

All right, I give up. My words mean nothing to some of you guys.

I said: Lutheran theologians freely confess the errors of Augustine. I MEANT that the Lutherans freely confess that Augustine was WRONG on the matter of JUSTIFICATION BY INTERNAL TRANSFORMATION, for which they are to be COMMENDED. Yet you turn my words around to state the exact opposite of what I said!

It is the REFORMED theologians who have been duped on this particular issue. They defend Gus NO MATTER WHAT on the issue of grace; I find that deplorable. That is what I was saying. Did ANYONE here realize the point that I was making?

wildboar

04-02-2009, 02:51 PM

I said: Lutheran theologians freely confess the errors of Augustine. I MEANT that the Lutherans freely confess that Augustine was WRONG on the matter of JUSTIFICATION BY INTERNAL TRANSFORMATION, for which they are to be COMMENDED. Yet you turn my words around to state the exact opposite of what I said!

It is the REFORMED theologians who have been duped on this particular issue. They defend Gus NO MATTER WHAT on the issue of grace; I find that deplorable. That is what I was saying. Did ANYONE here realize the point that I was making?

I sincerely apologize. I completely misunderstood what you were saying.

GraceAmbassador

04-02-2009, 04:06 PM

The teachings of a particular group can be determined by looking at their body of teachings. In the case of the Lutheran churches a person's best bet would be to consult the Book of Concord. My mother-in-law is a Jehovah's Witness but based upon her own behavior I would never use her as a guide for what JW's teach. Your previous post seemed to suggest that all your knowledge of Lutheranism was based on an observation of a small number of unnamed people who supposedly went by the name of Lutheran. You wrote:

You still have yet to produce any quotations from confessional documnents, synodical documents, or even actual Lutherans to back up your assertions. So your statements amount to nothing more than backbiting and slander.

It depends on what particular issue you are talking about. All these vague statements are not helpful. I don't know how you could prove the statement. It is a fact that the ELCA which is the largest so-called Lutheran denomination has in large part abandoned the Book of Concord but in those instances they cease to be Lutheran. Being Lutheran does not mean adhering to everything that Luther said (which would not be a good thing) but refers to adherence to the Book of Concord.

The wisdom of God is foolishness to man.

This is just more lying. I could produce thousands of lectures, statements from confessional documents, sermon tapes, and whatever else and you would still be shutting your ears like a child and yelling and saying you can't hear me and continuing to yell that Lutherans teach the errors of Augustine when it comes to justification.

And yet one of you pnet fellows must be wrong since Nicholas says that the Reformed Churches are in captivity to Augustine's errors of infused righteousness and you make the claim that the Reformed ignore it.

You are using the same logic of the old Soviet Union and today, Iran: "Since homosexuality is against the law in our country, there is no homosexuals in our country."

If I would show you documents on the Lutherans as a denominations, I would not have anything but praise for them, especially, but not limited to the fact that they can be considered the keepers of the "first love" of the Reformation. I don't know why your think that I am accusing, or indicting the Lutherans as a denomination when I said so.

I was also careful in using (very much on purpose) the word "individuals". The intention was to assure everyone that I was not talking about the Lutherans in general. I believe I was clear on that.

Your passion is leading you to misunderstand what I am saying and leading to fight against some windmill. I really admire and appreciate your passion and PRAY that you keep it this time. You were passionate before on other denominations. May God grant you stability on this one that you embraced now.

Again, I think "Lutherans rule and others drool". Perhaps you would understand this jovial statement better than the words I used on my two posts. I also hope that you acknowledge that using the terms "individuals" does not equal to calling an entire denomination what those individuals are and do.

Blessings!

Milt

gerhard

04-02-2009, 04:55 PM

gerhard

04-02-2009, 05:00 PM

larssc

04-03-2009, 01:51 AM

Chapter 37.—We Were Elected and Predestinated, Not Because We Were Going to Be Holy, But in Order that We Might Be So.

It would be too tedious to argue about the several points. But you see without doubt, you see with what evidence of apostolic declaration this grace is defended, in opposition to which human merits are set up, as if man should first give something for it to be recompensed to him again. Therefore God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, predestinating us to the adoption of children, not because we were going to be of ourselves holy and immaculate, but He chose and predestinated us that we might be so. Moreover, He did this according to the good pleasure of His will, so that nobody might glory concerning his own will, but about God’s will towards himself. He did this according to the riches of His grace, according to His good-will, which He purposed in His beloved Son; in whom we have obtained a share, being predestinated according to the purpose, not ours, but His, who worketh all things to such an extent as that He worketh in us to will also. Moreover, He worketh according to the counsel of His will, that we may be to the praise of His glory.

For this reason it is that we cry that no one should glory in man, and, thus, not in himself; but whoever glorieth let him glory in the Lord, that he may be for the praise of His glory. Because He Himself worketh according to His purpose that we may be to the praise of His glory, and, of course, holy and immaculate, for which purpose He called us, predestinating us before the foundation of the world.

Sounds good to me.

Larry

Robert R. Higby

04-03-2009, 02:53 AM

I apologize for my poor choice of words; Lutheran theologians freely confess the errors of Augustine.might easily be read as "freely confess the {same} errors" and I was not clear that I meant "freely confess the {existence of} errors". So it is my mistake and I completely understand why I was misunderstood.

However, Gerhard, I do not agree that Westminster is teaching what you are attributing to it. I know it can be read that way but it was not the original intent of the framers. And I have been a critic of many aspects of Westminster overall.

Robert R. Higby

04-03-2009, 03:12 AM

Milt: There are two reformers that I read, respect, refer and repeat: Calvin and Luther. I think that the Lutheran church today, IN GENERAL, apart from some individual exceptions, is neither Calvin nor Luther.

I agree with you! I also believe that Luther was more enlightened than Calvin on some issues, however, certainly not the issue of the Preservation of the Saints. Unfortunately, on that one Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Arminius, and Wesley all taught the same doctrine of devils:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a133.htm

I am most mournful to admit that Luther believed in conditional-time salvation for some (like Augustine). In other words, some are temporarily elect and given true faith for a time but eternally damned. I know that Charles called this doctrine 'the wisdom of God which is foolishness to man' but I know that in the judgment it will be exposed as the ultimate foolishness of man that attempts to make foolishness of the simplicity of God's election. With God there are no gray areas, everything is black and white. People are elect or reprobate, righteous or wicked. There is no in-between third category. Praise God for His true wisdom!

Robert R. Higby

04-03-2009, 03:37 AM

An interesting non-Lutheran blog named after Luther:

http://www.luthersstein.blogspot.com/

Not an endorsement, just a statement of interest!

wildboar

04-03-2009, 09:26 AM

I am most mournful to admit that Luther believed in conditional-time salvation for some (like Augustine). In other words, some are temporarily elect and given true faith for a time but eternally damned. I know that Charles called this doctrine 'the wisdom of God which is foolishness to man' but I know that in the judgment it will be exposed as the ultimate foolishness of man that attempts to make foolishness of the simplicity of God's election. With God there are no gray areas, everything is black and white. People are elect or reprobate, righteous or wicked. There is no in-between third category. Praise God for His true wisdom!

This is not true. Some are given faith but fall away. That does not mean that those who fall away were part of the "elect" in the narrow theological sense. Why they fall away is a mystery.

The Hawker

04-03-2009, 11:32 AM

This is not true. Some are given faith but fall away. That does not mean that those who fall away were part of the "elect" in the narrow theological sense. Why they fall away is a mystery.

With all due respect Charles, there is no mystery to the reason people fall away permanently that is. What you believe was God's grace, wasn't God's grace. It was that the cares of this world and other issues got in the way of any relationship with God. The "seed" never took root. The point is, we are to take up our cross and follow Jesus in the strength that He provides, through the measure of faith that He provides. We are told in the gospels about the cares of this world and other issues in the parable of the the sower.

As Robert said, God's selection for elect or reprobate is decided from before the foundation of the world and is a black and white issue, however unpalatable that may seem to us worms. There are no grey areas, only black and white areas.

There is no mystery in this at all.

Blessings,

Kevin.

Eileen

04-03-2009, 01:14 PM

This is not true. Some are given faith but fall away. That does not mean that those who fall away were part of the "elect" in the narrow theological sense. Why they fall away is a mystery.

I asked a few posts back a question about two different scriptures on this issue and it either was overlooked or was not considered a valid thought in regards to this issue. So maybe you will address it since you brought this very idea/thought up again.

Matthew 13:12 “For whosover hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath”

In Luke 8:18 the passage reads a bit differently in that is says “and whoever does not have, even what he seems to have will be taken from him”

I think this addresses exactly what you are thinking about falling away from true faith. It seems that they do have true faith, but it only seems that way and the Lord tells us that in the parables of the seeds. We know the Word of God accomplishes what it is sent to do so obviously the Word of God fell on ground that truly wasn’t prepared by the Holy Spirit, it only appeared that way for a time. These parables speak to us of God’s purposes in election to salvation and His active reprobation.

Also in Romans 11:29 “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance” seems to indicate to me that what God gives to His people He never takes back so how could He give true faith and then take it back? I don’t believe He does.

Eileen~

wildboar

04-03-2009, 05:19 PM

Eileen:

I've been trying to limit my internet time and so I don't always read every single post, but I apologize for not responding to your previous post.

I asked a few posts back a question about two different scriptures on this issue and it either was overlooked or was not considered a valid thought in regards to this issue. So maybe you will address it since you brought this very idea/thought up again.

Matthew 13:12 “For whosover hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath”

In Luke 8:18 the passage reads a bit differently in that is says “and whoever does not have, even what he seems to have will be taken from him”

I think this addresses exactly what you are thinking about falling away from true faith. It seems that they do have true faith, but it only seems that way and the Lord tells us that in the parables of the seeds. We know the Word of God accomplishes what it is sent to do so obviously the Word of God fell on ground that truly wasn’t prepared by the Holy Spirit, it only appeared that way for a time. These parables speak to us of God’s purposes in election to salvation and His active reprobation.

The Matthew 13:12 passage takes place in the context of his disciples asking why he speaks to "them" in parables. The "them" is probably best taken as referring to the Jews and more particularly to the Pharisees. The Pharisees believed that because of their physical descent and good works that they possessed or at least would possess the kingdom of God. I think we can read the Luke passage in the same way in which case even what they seem to have (the true worship of God and so forth) will be taken away (the destruction of the temple). They never had faith in Christ to begin with so I don't think this is where we should look to find out why some fall away from the faith. It never really mentions faith.

Also in Romans 11:29 “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance” seems to indicate to me that what God gives to His people He never takes back so how could He give true faith and then take it back? I don’t believe He does.

Romans 11 is dealing with the whole issue of Israel.

As concerning the Gospel, they are enemies for your sakes; but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. V.29. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. V.30. For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief, v.31. even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.

The elect within Israel will come to repentance and faith. The passage is dealing more specifically with the concept of election, not the issue of those who fall away from the faith. I think we should always be careful to pay attention to what a passage is actually addressing and try to use passages to support favorite doctrines. If we want to learn what the Lord's Supper is we should look at passages that talk about the Lord's Suupper. If we want to know about people falling away from the faith we should look at those passages and not try to come at the doctrine in some round about way based upon theological formulations.

Greg Winegar

04-03-2009, 06:22 PM

Brandan Kraft

04-29-2011, 01:58 PM

You can view the page at http://www.predestinarian.net/content/93-The-Augustinian-Captivity-of-the-Reformed-Church