/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>632689

Former Lutheran, now catholic catechumen:

Luther's teachings on grace per se aren't that bad. They're a bit simplistic, because his soteriology doesn't need to distinguish between actual and sanctifying grace, but whatever: as far as I can tell, luther's general ideas about grace aren't too broken…just simplistic and incomplete.

The problem with luther, once you do understand actual grace, is that his idea of monergism is pure autism.

In a nutshell, catholicism teaches that by the actual graces of god, we are given the means to merit salvation. For instance, if I get the inkling thought to read the bible today, that thought (which impels me towards a meritorious deed) is indeed an actual grace of god. I now, in my intellection of this though, have 2 choices: I can either go execute the action of reading the bible as the thought suggests (thus cooperating with god's actual grace), or I can sit around and keep shitposting on 8chan, ignoring the thought (thus denying god's actual grace).

Luther believes the exact same thing about the general idea of grace (except that he doesn't distinguish between actual and sanctifying grace). The issue is that he somehow comes to the conclusion that man does not cooperate with grace. That instead of having to either choose to read or choose to shitpost, based on this inkling thought, I only have the ability to shitpost.

>isnt his idea the "declared righteousness" similar to aquinas's habitus of grace?

I would say it is, but with some notes. When aquinas speaks of the habitus of grace, he's speaking of sanctifying grace, which is somewhat similar to luther's declared righteousness, and when considered in the light of what the book of concord says about mortal sin, I'd say it's more similar than a lot of people would like to admit.

The problem is that *luther denies the existence of actual grace*. Cooperation with the actual graces of god allows us to persist in the "declared" state of sanctifying grace.

Even lutheran theology admits this, but is appears as an incomplete formulation of what catholics already know. The book of concord admits openly that mortal sin is incompatible with saving faith, expels the holy spirit from the believer and is only rectified through contrition and absolution.

The problem with the lutheran position is that it has no mechanism for the cause of contrition in the fallen christian who is in need of reconciliation. If mortal sin expels faith and the holy spirit, then there is no means to receive grace (per luther), and if there is no distinction in actual and sanctifying grace, then there is no modus for god to bring the sinner back to sanctification, since (to the lutheran), mortal sin kills faith and thus grace of both kinds (since they do not distinguish).

Contrition does occur, though, so an operative means for it's cause must also exist, which is likewise distinct from the state of grace. Thus: the distinction between actual and sanctifying grace must be made, and overall, this renders luther's idiocy what it is: idiocy.

>>632871

>In a nutshell, catholicism teaches that by the actual graces of god, we are given the means to merit salvation. For instance, if I get the inkling thought to read the bible today, that thought (which impels me towards a meritorious deed) is indeed an actual grace of god. I now, in my intellection of this though, have 2 choices: I can either go execute the action of reading the bible as the thought suggests (thus cooperating with god's actual grace), or I can sit around and keep shitposting on 8chan, ignoring the thought (thus denying god's actual grace).

Sounds like the great weakness of this view is that it bears nothing in common with what the New Testament says about sin, grace and salvation. There is certainly no way to make "we are given the means to merit salvation" square up with Ephesians 2:8-9

>Luther believes the exact same thing about the general idea of grace (except that he doesn't distinguish between actual and sanctifying grace). The issue is that he somehow comes to the conclusion that man does not cooperate with grace.

Seems to me you don't understand the real meat of the Reformation. Of course Luther comes to the conclusion that man does not cooperate with grace. Resistance to the idea of cooperation is the sum total of the entire Reformation, it's less so the conclusion and more the whole point.

>That instead of having to either choose to read or choose to shitpost, based on this inkling thought, I only have the ability to shitpost.

It's not like a sinner would like to behave righteously but has some physical incapability, they are equally able of both options, but because they love sin and hate God, they will always choose the unrighteous option, unless God frees their will from sin. That is monergism.

>When aquinas speaks of the habitus of grace, he's speaking of sanctifying grace, which is somewhat similar to luther's declared righteousness

I'm not so sure of that, considering when Luther is speaking about declared righteousness, he's talking about a iustitia alienum, it is extra nos. Whereas baptism supposedly actually makes you truly righteous and without sin, in the Reformation view the righteous man is no less sinful than the unrighteous, his righteousness is merely imputed.

>The book of concord admits openly that mortal sin is incompatible with saving faith, expels the holy spirit from the believer and is only rectified through contrition and absolution

I'm sorry, but where does it say this? I think you have horribly misunderstood it, not only because it would be a repudiation of Luther's breakthrough, but also because it would contradict many things within the Book of Concord itself.

>>632929

>Wherefore, the faith which receives remission of sins in a heart terrified and fleeing from sin does not remain in those who obey their desires, neither does it coexist with mortal sin.

>Likewise the faith of which we speak exists in repentance, i.e., it is conceived in the terrors of conscience, which feels the wrath of God against our sins, and seeks the remission of sins, and to be freed from sin. And in such terrors and other afflictions this faith ought to grow and be strengthened.

>http://bookofconcord.org/defense_5_love.php

faith doesnt coexist with mortal sin, and it exists in contrition in lutheranism.

How does it exist in contrition if mortal sin expels it?

>>633063

I'm not familiar with Melancthon's use of the term mortal sin, what meaning he personally filled it with, but it sounds to me like he's speaking about an embrace of sin as opposed to a hatred of it as he was saying just above. He certainly doesn't hold the idea of mortal sin as held by Roman Catholicism, which kills the grace of justification, since this is incompatible with sola fide, and strictly incompatible with the law-gospel distinction which he utilizes in that very passage. But regarding your misunderstanding, I see the problem is you have forgotten that Melancthon is a monergist, and read him synergistically. He doesn't say mortal sin expels faith, he says that true faith does not coexist with mortal sin. Considering he is a monergist this means he believes that God does not allow anyone who believes to commit mortal sin.

Indeed, it seems my interpretation of what is meant by 'mortal sin' is confirmed by the line "Wherefore it cannot exist in those who live according to the flesh who are delighted by their own lusts and obey them", meaning that mortal sin refers specifically to sins commited by a heart that loves and craves sin, so that rather than being war between their members as Paul says, it is harmony. And this is what he means by faith existing in repentance, that the recognition and detestation of the evil of sin is itself a component of true faith.

>Also isnt his idea the "declared righteousness" similar to aquinas's habitus of grace?

I don't think so. Aquinas' view is like the teaching given by the Council of Trent. Luther's is something different. Luther's view and the common Protestant view would be that the state of grace primarily refers to God's favor towards someone. Grace is external, as another poster said below. Thomas Aquinas considers different aspects of grace (favor, gift and gratitude), and says that grace is God's love in the soul.

See

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2110.htm

Or

>As God's love consists not merely in the act of the Divine will but also implies a certain effect of grace, as stated above (I-II:110:1), so likewise, when God does not impute sin to a man, there is implied a certain effect in him to whom the sin is not imputed; for it proceeds from the Divine love, that sin is not imputed to a man by God.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2113.htm#article2

>Sounds like the great weakness of this view is that it bears nothing in common with what the New Testament says about sin, grace and salvation. There is certainly no way to make "we are given the means to merit salvation" square up with Ephesians 2:8-9

That same passage of Ephesians very much says that we are given the means to "merit" salvation.

>For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

He does not say, by the preceding text, that walking in those works is not necessary for salvatiom. The point is that we do not merit the grace of justification (which is also the Catholic doctrine), and that even our good works done after justification are a gift of God (also Catholic doctrine). Reading sola fide into the passage goes far beyond what the text actually says. And it does not contradict the Catholic doctrine of condign merit.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2114.htm#article3

>>633119

<For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Not of yourselves, meaning that from start to finish there is not a bit of man in the effort, that at every point it is God, it is the gift of God, there is no obligation on God's part whatsoever, it is a free gift. Not of works, not in reward for our deeds, since it is a gift, lest anyone should boast. If anyone is given grounds to boast of their ability and success (as all merit does), it is a false salvation.

So in light of the fact Paul teaches grace that is powerful and not the grace which is a businessman giving a bum a job, I believe it is safe to say that in verse 10 he is not saying what he just said is actually false. In fact, if you let it speak for itself, it obviously means that the purpose why God has of Himself saved us is so we would perform good works (see Galatians 5:1, 1 Peter 1:16).

>>633126

>Not of yourselves, meaning that from start to finish there is not a bit of man in the effort…

He literally says, "that we should walk in them." How you go from that to, "there is not a bit of man in the effort" is a mystery. People freelt cooperate with grace. God doesn't move people around like puppets.

>If anyone is given grounds to boast of their ability and success (as all merit does), it is a false salvation.

Condign merit is not grounds for boasting, for the reasoning Paul gives in this passage. I don't think you understand what Catholics mean by condign merit.

>>633132

>He literally says, "that we should walk in them."

The final clause expresses purpose as I have said.

>How you go from that to, "there is not a bit of man in the effort" is a mystery

You've got it backwards. It stops being mysterious when you go in the order Paul did and read verses 8 and 9 before verse 10.

>People freelt cooperate with grace

Not in this passage they don't. Even verse 10 says that God has "ordained" these works for us.

>Condign merit is not grounds for boasting

Is it salvific merit?

>>633143

>Is it salvific merit?

That's irrelevant. If you even have to ask that, it's clear you don't know the difference between the two.

Congruous merit is a reward for something which is owed to something because of it's own nature. For example, a laborer receives his wages as a congruous merit, because the work he does, he does through his own means (his body, mind, etc).

Condign merit, on the other hand, is a reward given for an action done by an actor who is empowered by something outside of himself. The most common example is military commendations: the soldier did the action which is worthy of praise, but he did it only because of his being trained, equipped and supported by the military which awarded him the accolade.

all merit earned by men in matters of religion is condign; we receive god's grace, and his grace enables us to perform actions which (like with the soldier) we would be incapable of without that grace. Like the soldier, though, with his rifle and training, we still have to nut up and charge into the no-man's land of life carrying out the deeds god has equipped us for.

When we do as much, like with the soldier who is commended for his militarily enabled prowess, we earn merit. Merit means "to reward" – it is the action which comes consequentially from something else. What we indeed merit is further grace, just as a good soldier merits a promotion which enables him to indeed do more of the will of his military – so too, we in receiving more grace, carry forward more ability to do god's will in the world.

For instance, a certain act which has been declared meritorious (trigger warning prots: it's a partial indulgence even!) is reading the bible for 30 minutes. In reading the bible for any amount of time, do we not know christ better, reading his very words? do we not become inspired by the words of the prophets and apostles? do we not draw closer to god through this? are we not rewarded (remember kids: merit means "something which is rewarded") with renewed and strengthened faith through this endeavour?

In doing this act, we indeed do merit further grace, and it is grace which even enables our faith. By grace, we have faith, faith enables us to have hope, and hope lets us love god as he ought to be loved, and this is salvation. Certain deeds unquestionably confer grace, which leads to built up faith, which indeed strengthens our hope, and thus our love.

And as the apostle says, of faith hope and love, love is the greatest.

>>633746

>That's irrelevant

No, it's the whole point. If you don't see that it means you don't understand Paul (unsurprising tbh). One of Paul's chief concerns in opposing the judaizers was that no ground be given for boasting in eternity, that because they were making salvation dependent on human action, they were giving men room to boast against those who had failed where they succeeded and thereby steal glory for themselves. Any notion of meriting eternal life enables this boasting, the whole reason of this world is so that we all fail and Christ alone succeeds, so only He can claim any glory.

>If you even have to ask that, it's clear you don't know the difference between the two.

I'm well aware of the distinctions of merit in Roman Catholicism and reject it.

>all merit earned by men in matters of religion is condign; we receive god's grace, and his grace enables us to perform actions which (like with the soldier) we would be incapable of without that grace. Like the soldier, though, with his rifle and training, we still have to nut up and charge into the no-man's land of life carrying out the deeds god has equipped us for.

Let's look at this with a more biblical analogy, namely, that of work and wage. So, let's say there is a downtrodden bum on the street, a filthy vagrant, and a businessman takes pity on him, and offers him a job. That is all of grace, the bum doesn't deserve that at all, the businessman didn't have to offer him it, but once that bum accepts the job and does it, his payment is not a gift, it is a wage which is owed. He didn't do the job solely by himself, he didn't even get the job without his boss' help, and he received his payment because his boss promised it, but it is still a wage, something which he deserves. The only way the pay can truly be a gift is if it is freely given as such, not requiring any action on part of the receiver.

>Merit means "to reward"

It can, but even then it carries a connotation of deserving.

>What we indeed merit is further grace

According to Romans 11:6 that is incoherent.

>just as a good soldier merits a promotion which enables him to indeed do more of the will of his military

And if he actually merited it it isn't a gift.

>are we not rewarded (remember kids: merit means "something which is rewarded") with renewed and strengthened faith through this endeavour?

But we didn't do it of ourselves. It isn't that God offered us this and then we decided it's a good idea. God works in us both to will and to work.

>we indeed do merit further grace

What would make it merit? If we did it of ourselves.

>Certain deeds unquestionably confer grace

The only thing which confers grace is God, and He does so merely out of His own good pleasure, and to suggest anything otherwise is blasphemous and heathenistic.

>>633143

I'm the poster you replied to.

You're original argument was that these verses precludes the concept of merit. He says that we we should not baost because we are saved by faith, which is the gift of God, and that all our good works are prepared for us by God. This would disprove "strict merit," but not the condign or congruous kinds of merit as described by St. Thomas above. Nor does it prove that works are irrelevant to our final judgment. You are saying thay works are irrelevant because God "prepares them" for us. But Paul says that faith is a gift of God, so faith and works are no different in that regard.

>>People freelt cooperate with grace

>Not in this passage they don't. Even verse 10 says that God has "ordained" these works for us.

I don't understand why you keep saying this. Normal people would what you wrote and rightly think you're saying God manipulates people like soulless puppets.the true doctrine of predestination does not deny free will or human action. Compare with this verse: "For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." Note the it says will and act.

>>634606

>This would disprove "strict merit," but not the condign or congruous kinds of merit as described by St. Thomas above

I'm gonna quote myself, hope you don't mind

"One of Paul's chief concerns in opposing the judaizers was that no ground be given for boasting in eternity, that because they were making salvation dependent on human action, they were giving men room to boast against those who had failed where they succeeded and thereby steal glory for themselves. Any notion of meriting eternal life enables this boasting, the whole reason of this world is so that we all fail and Christ alone succeeds, so only He can claim any glory."

>Nor does it prove that works are irrelevant to our final judgment

I agree, that would be the part where he says "and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works"

>You are saying thay works are irrelevant because God "prepares them" for us

No, works are irrelevant because we are covered over by Christ, God no longer judges us. My point with regard to the preparation was about the claim of free cooperation.

>But Paul says that faith is a gift of God, so faith and works are no different in that regard

What's your point?

>Normal people would what you wrote and rightly think you're saying God manipulates people like soulless puppets

Only if they intended to misrepresent me

>"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

Right, and that was my point. It isn't that God just works in us to will and then it's up to our free will if we're going to act on it or not, this verse says God works in us both to will and to work.

Your argument about boasting is nonsensical. Paul teaches that all our good works are predestinated by God, so therefore we cannot boast. We are fully reliant on God to perform these good works, and God grants and witholds this grace according to his pleasure, not according to prior merit. That is is argument. His argument is not that works cannot be boasted about because they are unnecessary for salvation. Otherwise, it would follow that faith would be a basis for boasting, since faith is required for salvation.

The statement "by grace you are saved, through faith… not of works…" does not prove works are unnecessary for salvation unless you believe in "once saved, always saved," which Catholics do not. Paul can rightly say that one is saved through faith (since we approach baptism only with faith, and do not merit the initial grace of justification), but also say things like

>[God] will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil…

Showing judgment on man's works, both for the reprobate and elect. And Catholics can take such passages at face value, rather than creating tortured explanations about how Paul meant something completely different from the obvious meaning of his words.

>Right, and that was my point. It isn't that God just works in us to will and then it's up to our free will if we're going to act on it or not, this verse says God works in us both to will and to work.

I don't think you're disagreeing with me in substance, just that your language is clumsy. Either a work is willed or it isn't. Paul says we will and do good works. Either they are willed, in which case it is done freely, or it is coerced and done either against our will or entirely without or will (like a puppet). Paul clearly teaches the former. God predestines as moves us to do a good work, but we are moved to will it and do it. That is the "cooperation" between God and man.

>>634722

>Paul teaches that all our good works are predestinated by God, so therefore we cannot boast

That is not his argument. His argument is that we cannot boast because it isn't us doing it. Read the verse again, nobody can boast because it is "not of works" (not to mention the greater clarity of this argument given in Romans 4). Rather than the basis of this non-boasting being that we are reliant on God for these good works, there are no works in Ephesians 2 until verse 10.

>His argument is not that works cannot be boasted about because they are unnecessary for salvation.

It's not about being able to boast about works, it's about being able to boast at all. We can boast of nothing in our salvation because nothing is of ourselves, it is all a gift of God. The only way your point would work is if God gave saving grace to the elect alone and their cooperation is unnecessary. But since you believe God gives all grace equally and the determining factor of their salvation is whether they will cooperate, you give the elect license to boast, at least in the way the pharisee did in the parable of the pharisee and the publican.

>since we approach baptism only with faith, and do not merit the initial grace of justification

Paul has no concept of initial justification.

>but also say things like

Romans 2 is part of a larger argument and is not itself preaching of the gospel but of the law. Paul's whole point is that there is no one who "by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality", just like in Romans 1 his point is that there is no one who would "honor him as God or give thanks to him". Both chapters are in the same flow and leading to Romans 3 where he declares that all are under sin, and all must be justified by Christ alone.

>tortured explanations about how Paul meant something completely different from the obvious meaning of his words

You mean like how you're dealing with Ephesians 2?

>Either they are willed, in which case it is done freely, or it is coerced and done either against our will or entirely without or will (like a puppet)

They are willed freely, which is to say without bondage to sin. That is the only meaningful freedom a creature can have. If they have an alternative, they are not free and will not do good, but are enslaved to sin. They do not do good because they are somehow forced to, but because they have been set free to only want good.

The problem begins with a different understanding of salvation:

>In the Protestant view, for man to enter Heaven he needs to have kept God’s Law perfectly. This means Salvation for the Protestant is purely based upon human “works,” the catch is that since sin has tainted all we do, it’s impossible for man to keep God’s Law perfectly. This is why Protestants say we need Jesus to keep God’s Law perfectly for us, and impute this “work” to us as if we did all this “work” ourselves. Hence why Protestants say our only hope to stand before God and be seen as “righteous” (i.e. a perfect keeper of the Law) is to trust in “Christ’s finished work” alone. So what does any of this have to do with faith alone? Protestants say the way we ‘receive’ this “work” that Christ did is through ‘the empty hand of faith,’ which reaches out and lays hold of and applies that work to our account.

>In the Catholic view, for man to enter Heaven requires that he be in communion with God before he passes from this life. For Catholics, Salvation is not so much about ‘doing’ as it is about ‘being’. Communion with God is principally characterized by being “in a state of grace,” that means us possessing the divine gifts of faith, hope, and charity, as well as the Indwelling of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in our souls. In this view, faith implies the possession of all these other divine gifts for the Catholic. And the means by which a person first acquires all these is through “the washing of regeneration,” also known as Baptism.

>The Protestant sees Paul as teaching that the “works” do in fact save us, but that we need Christ to keep it for us, and apply that “work” to us by faith. The Catholic sees Paul as teaching that one does not enter into communion through the Mosaic Law, but rather he enters (and stays) in communion with God by possessing the divine (not human) gifts, stated simply as ‘having faith’.

For more on that:

http://www.creedcodecult.com/the-need-for-perfect-law-keeping-part-1/

http://www.creedcodecult.com/the-need-for-perfect-law-keeping-part-2/

http://www.creedcodecult.com/the-need-for-perfect-law-keeping-part-3/

Protestants usually believe that Christ took the punishment for us (aka Penal Substitution), which leads to a number of problems: http://reknew.org/2015/12/10-problems-with-the-penal-substitution-view-of-the-atonement/

Really the questions you should ask start at a much more basic level:

Why is the Bible the sole authority when that view itself is not scriptural?

Even more damning: Every Protestant church in the world itself relies on traditions as to how they organize their church service or any number of theological concepts that are never clearly mentioned in the bible. From their distinction between justification and sanctification (which is unbiblical and not a believe that ever existed prior to the reformation) over dispensationalism, all the way to universal things like the trinity.

Why are those 66 books in the Bible but not others? Protestants removed books from the Catholic Old Testament, but decided to keep the New Testament as given to them. Why not not remove James, like Luther wanted to, and add the Shepherd of Hermas or the Epistle of Barnabas for example?

How do you deal with "on that rock I will built my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"? Seems pretty clear to me that it says that Peter the Rock is the founder of that church and that it will not vanish. Yet Protestants claim exactly the opposite, that the gates of hell did prevail and a Reformation was needed.

How do Protestants decide which passages are supposed to be allegories and which are to be taken as literal teachings? The best example of this would of course be the real presence in the Eucharist, which is a doctrine that was supported by nearly all Church Fathers but today, a great deal of Protestants don't even celebrate the Eucharist at all! Same thing when talking about the "Washing of regeneration", which in their view is not baptism (because that would be works) but metaphorical.