Fiftieth Post!!
Sorry, had to celebrate the landmark! It's been nearly a year here at St. Andrew's, and I thought I'd reflect on it a bit...but then I thought I wouldn't bore you.
Anyway, I read an interesting article today at Cor ad cor loquitur that I thought I'd pass on to you, all about how Christmas in our culture is decaying into a secular morass, and whose fault it actually is. The answer may surprise (and enrage) you, so feel free to leave comments (that aren't too violent)!
This was not actually written by Dave Armstrong, but by his friend, Steve Kellmeyer.
Personally, I think that we as Catholics should live out our holy days the way they were intended!
God bless
Gregory!
Anyway, I read an interesting article today at Cor ad cor loquitur that I thought I'd pass on to you, all about how Christmas in our culture is decaying into a secular morass, and whose fault it actually is. The answer may surprise (and enrage) you, so feel free to leave comments (that aren't too violent)!
This was not actually written by Dave Armstrong, but by his friend, Steve Kellmeyer.
How the Christians Stole Christmas
by Steve Kellmeyer
December 02 and 08, 2005
'Tis the season for complaining. Specifically, 'tis the season for Christians to chatter and moan about America's secular culture. "Happy Holidays" has replaced "Merry Christmas," Kwanzaa is in and Christ is out, and as a Catholic, I'm expected to get upset. But it's hard to do. As Grandpa might have said, after 500 years, a man jest gits tired.
For nearly half of the last millennium, Christians have slowly been chipping away at Christmas. Now, in imitation of Alexander the Great who wept because he had no more worlds to conquer, they caterwaul because they have nearly completed their task. Are they upset because it took so long or because it's almost gone?
America's Christians have fought long and hard for this day. Why aren't they celebrating?
After all, the attack on Christmas began in a most ingenious fashion. Instead of attacking the day itself, the other major holy days of the year were first stripped away. The law of prayer is the law of belief, as the saying goes, and the law had to go.
Thomas More's character in A Man for All Seasons summarized the situation nicely: "What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?... Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coastman's laws, not God's and if you cut them down . . . d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? . . . Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake."
But the Christians who started the war against Christmas didn't have the benefit of a good screenwriter, so they didn't understand the consequences of their actions. The first holy day to be expunged from the Christian calendar, the first law of prayer to die, was All Holy Eve now known as Halloween. The man who murdered it? Martin Luther.
In 1517, he chose All Holy Eve, the vigil of All Saint's Day, to attack the idea that those who had died deserved any respect or care from those who lived. According to Luther, prayer afforded no one grace. The Reformation literally converted the communion of saints into the coven of witches; every person who invoked the aid of the saints was now guilty of a demonic attempt to commune with the dead.
Not surprisingly, the rise of the Protestant Reformation created an incredible upsurge in demon-hunting and witch trials. Wherever Protestant strength undermined Catholic authority, the upper-class intellectuals of the day would drive secular mobs to burn and hang witches. Protestant ideology transformed All Holy Eve from a day of sanctity that commemorated communion with God into a day of evil commemorating Satan's power.
It took a few centuries, but the first holy day had fallen. It would not be the last.
Throughout the whole expanse of the year, holy days began to decay into holidays. The most serious assaults were made on feast days whose Masses were celebrated with special joy.
How many people remember Candlemas? It is the Mass celebrating the Presentation of the Child Jesus in the Temple and the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Offered forty days after Christmas, Candlemas marks the end of the Christmas season, as everyone used to know:Down with the rosemary, and soRobert Herrick (1591-1674), "Ceremony upon Candlemas Eve"
Down with the bays and misletoe ;
Down with the holly, ivy, all,
Wherewith ye dress'd the Christmas Hall
By the late 1800's, Americans had transformed this most ancient feast in honor of the Virgin Mary into Groundhog Day - a signal accomplishment in the continuing Protestant attempt to separate Catholic Church and state. And the two goals, the destruction of holy days and the separation of church and state, should not be seen as separated or separable.
After all, Martin Luther not only began the attack on holy days; he was also the first to propose the idea of church-state separation. Ironically, Luther's deep devotion to Mary has gone down the same memory hole that has eaten the holy days, thus no one knows how Luther destroyed what he most loved. But it hardly matters. He is long since dead, and according to his own rules, his aid cannot be invoked by either side of the debate.
Meanwhile, the destruction proceeded apace. Michaelmas, the Mass offered on September 29th in celebration of St. Michael's victory over Satan, became the day to settle rents and collect accounts. By the late 1800's, it too had been stripped of all the celebratory hospitality that had marked it as a major feast of the Catholic Middle Ages.
Childermas, the December 28 Mass commemorating the Feast of the Holy Innocents slaughtered by Herod, was not replaced by another event so much as it was simply overcome by the commercialization of the holiday. It slipped into oblivion. America had won the war against nearly every major Mass in the liturgical calendar.
Indeed, between 1700 and 1776, not a single Mass was celebrated in New York City - it was illegal. And, if it had not been necessary for American Protestants to employ French Catholic military support, priests would not have been present to celebrate Mass in New York during the Revolution either. The Mass had long since been stripped out of Protestant society like meat from the bone.
Candlemas, Childermas, Michaelmas, and now Christmas. Is it any wonder that a population who opposed any celebration of the Mass would eventually oppose the Mass celebrating Christ's own birth?
Catholics complained when Protestants stripped the Mass out of Christmas. Now Protestants complain that atheists will strip Christmas out of the calendar.
But what, exactly, is the problem with obliterating all reference to Christ's Mass? Isn't this what America has been working to accomplish for 200 years?
Years ago, Max Weber asserted the Protestant work ethic made America and England great. While that may be true, it is much easier to demonstrate that the Protestant work ethic made America secular humanist and atheist.
As we noted last week, the Christian assault on Christmas has been subtle but unrelenting. This is due in no small part to the Protestant work ethic and Calvinist theology which insists that we can tell who is saved by looking at who has the biggest bank account -- according to Calvin, the elect aren't poor.
The attack on Christmas in America began in earnest during World War II, when this virulently Protestant nation started sending its boys overseas to fight. Prior to that war, Advent and Christmas were still recognized as distinct seasons. It is difficult today to imagine the scene, but we must try.
How Things Used to Be
The liturgical year used by Christians for one and a half millennia was intended to make us aware of Christ's life every day. According to this way of understanding the passage of time, Advent served two purposes: it made us aware of Old Testament anticipation as Israel waited for the coming of the Savior and it made us aware of our own current anticipation as we wait for His Second Coming. Advent was meant to look backward and forward simultaneously: backward to the sinfulness of man prior to the Incarnation and forward to both the sinfulness and the glory of man that would be revealed at the Last Judgement.
Because Advent had this dual meaning, Christmas also had a dual meaning. The celebration of the Christmas season was meant to remind us of both the gifts of salvation Christ brought through His Incarnation and the gift of heaven, the eternal exchange of divine Persons which we would in some sense experience in the Beatific Vision.
This was the reason for the gift-giving during the twelve days of Christmas. The days between Christmas and the Feast of the Epiphany, when the three kings laid theirs at the Child's feet was a reminder both of Christ and of heaven. While every feast day in the calendar year involved some kind of feast and some kind of gift-giving, Christmas season was pre-eminent precisely because it alone was meant to be a foretaste of heaven. In fact, the season was not considered complete until the Feast of the Presentation at the Temple and the Purification of the Virgin on February 2.
After the Feast of the Presentation came Lent, when everyone spent six weeks walking the Via Dolorosa, with the suffering Christ, walking the Way of Tears. After we lived His suffering and death, we lived His Easter Resurrection. For the liturgically-minded, Easter day lasts eight mortal days — the whole week following Easter is considered one long celebration, although the partying didn't end until Pentecost, which marked the end of Easter and the beginning of ordinary time. During ordinary time Christians lived out and contemplated the growth of the Church through history as She prepared for the Second Coming and the Last Judgement.
When this is understood, the importance of the Feasts of All Holy Eve, All Saints' Day and All Souls' Day, indeed, the whole month of November, is much more obvious. This season was crucial to understanding and properly celebrating Advent. Those feasts and that month were spent in special contemplation of death and dying, of sin and judgement and all who had gone before us, marked with the sign of Faith.
The Four Last Things are Death, Judgement, Heaven and Hell. During November, Christians contemplated and prepared for Death. During Advent, we contemplated and prepared for Judgement. During Christmas, we contemplated and lived out Heaven, at least as best we could.
So, up until World War II, every Christian treated Advent as a time of preparation and repentance. No one would think of putting stockings, ornaments, even Christmas trees, up until Christmas Eve. During Advent, everyone meditated on the world's wickedness prior to God come in the flesh (past), and prepared themselves for the Last Day, when God comes as Judge (future). For centuries, Christmas was at once both a reminder of the Incarnation, the First Coming, and a reminder of Dooms-Day, Judgement Day, the Second Coming.
Why Things Changed
Martin Luther changed the understanding of November and of holy days in general; World War II changed the understanding of Advent and Christmas. As war swept the world, buying habits had to change. Because it took six weeks to transport anything by ship over the ocean, Americans were told to buy their Christmas gifts for their sons overseas by Thanksgiving, or their sons would not receive those gifts by February 2.
The Christmas buying season had been December 25th through February 2nd, with the most intense gift-giving happening during the twelve days of Christmas. But during the war, it extended from Thanksgiving to February 2nd. American Protestants, that is, American businesses, liked the extra income generated by the much longer and earlier selling season. The war against the Germans ended in 1945, but the war against Christmas was just revving into high gear.
Ever since World War II, America's Christian businessmen have been strenuously trying to destroy the whole concept of Advent. Repentant people, sorrowing people, people aware of their gluttonies, these kinds of people do not buy much. This is unacceptable to a Protestant understanding of commerce.
Not only was this sorrow bad for business, it was bad for the pulpit. If Calvin is right, we have no reason to repent. We are the Elect -- we are assured of our salvation! In fact, we have a duty to show others how well the Elect live! Break out the credit cards!
Sixty years of advertising broke two millennia of Christian practice. America famously refuses to contemplate death, so all Holy Eve, All Saints' Day and All Souls' Day had to be destroyed. Protestant businessmen knew just how to do that. They disassociated the days from their traditional contemplation of the saints' joy in heaven and turned them into pagan party festivals. Contemplating saints is dangerous, after all. They don't own credit cards. Christian businessman could not afford the possibility that anyone would realize this.
So, Halloween has now become the closest thing we have to an Advent season. Advent has been transformed into a four-week long Christmas season, and Christmas season is now Purgatory. The season during which we are supposed to celebrate our life in heaven with the Christ child is now the time we pay all the bills. Today, we sing "The Twelve Days of Christmas" during Advent. Unlike Good King Wenceslaus, we toss all of our Christmas decorations on the trash heap on the Feast of Stephen. The Church's first martyr has lost out to Boxing Day and end-of-the-month card statements.
When was the last time anyone had a school Christmas pageant or business Christmas party during Christmas season, that is, after Christmas Day? Indeed, how many Christians even gather together to worship on the Feast of the Incarnation? Even as the Christmas/Holiday controversy swirls through the news media, CNN reports that most large evangelical church congregations don't even have Christmas services.
The irony is rich. Protestants insist on retaining the word "Christmas" even though they have already drained every scrap of belief and practice out of the word. They stripped the Mass out of "Christ-Mass" day, they stripped the contemplation of death and judgement out of the Advent season, they stripped the gift-giving out of the Christmas season, they don't even gather to celebrate on the day of His birth, but they are in high dudgeon about the missing word. The day is dead, but the lack of white-washing on the tomb offends them.
And I'm supposed to join them in being upset?
Alright, I will.
I promise.
Just wait until I stop laughing.
*****
Steve Kellmeyer is a nationally recognized author and lecturer on pro-life issues. His work is available through www.bridegroompress.com. He can be contacted at skellmeyer@bridegroompress.com. The blog where this article originally appeared (in two parts) is The Fifth Column.
Personally, I think that we as Catholics should live out our holy days the way they were intended!
God bless
Gregory!
Labels: Christmas, Holidays, Other's Writings
126 Comments:
"In 1517, he chose All Holy Eve, the vigil of All Saint's Day, to attack the idea that those who had died deserved any respect or care from those who lived. According to Luther, prayer afforded no one grace. The Reformation literally converted the communion of saints into the coven of witches; every person who invoked the aid of the saints was now guilty of a demonic attempt to commune with the dead.
I think this is what is known in the literary world as 'hyperbole.' That is, exaggeration. Dr. Luther was reacting to the exclusion of the worship of Christ, the promotion of indulgences, transference of merits, and the inapproachability, and inaccessibility of the clergy and Mass. Nevertheless, would you be so quick as to write-off his conversion experience the eve he prayed to St. Anne? It seemed he was rather convinced at that moment that saints to give ear to us!
The notion of saints in the original German, Protestant churches (those who called themselves 'evangelicals') was that they are fully worthy of veneration, and we should imitate them as best we could for their lives are an example of God's living grace and mercy. It wasn't until people like Zwingli (the arch-heretic), the Zwickau Prophets, and the Radicals (anabaptists) came along that the veneration of saints was demonized and railed against.
Be careful, Gregory, to not succumb to the temptations of post hoc ergo propter hoc (Lt. 'After that therefore because of that'), and conclude that because Dr. Luther reacted to the abuse of saints, therefore he's responsible for their systematic disavowel in the Reformed, and Anabaptist assemblies these past 500 years. It's not logical, and not historically accurate, as far as I can tell.
Cheers!
Christopher J. Freeman
True enough, and discussing the history with you, I realise that--but since many Protestants themselves will hang it all on Luther, I thought this bit of hyperbole (and I recognised it as such myself--Calvin wasn't all that name-it-and-claim-it either) was still thought-provoking. Reading out a strictly post hoc view, we still do see that it was the logical conclusion--because All Saints and All Souls, and the entire month of November, is about more than simply invoking Saints, and when we'd lost that emphasis, the emphasis goes on the rest of it all! I think the hyperbole was intended as shock value. At least, that was my intent in reproducing it.
And most of the value that I found in the article was knowing how Christmas was intended to be celebrated.
God bless!
Gregory
Gregory,
It's 4:20 a.m. as I write this, so please forgive me if it makes no sense.
You stated:
"Reading out a strictly post hoc view, we still do see that it was the logical conclusion--because All Saints and All Souls, and the entire month of November, is about more than simply invoking Saints, and when we'd lost that emphasis, the emphasis goes on the rest of it all!"
I'm not sure I understand what you meant by that. Can you clarify, please?
If by what you wrote before, you meant that because most Protestants hang it on Luther anyway, therefore the hyperbole stands when viewed post hoc, I'm not sure I can agree. The reason is simple: one cannot logically hold to the position that X is illogical, but viewed as such becomes logical. In other words, you can't miss the target infront of you, then look over your shoulder to correct your aim!
Still, I could be missing the point entirely. I'll look over my shoulder to type this last sentence!
Cheers!
Christopher J. Freeman
Gregory,
One more thing: it is good to know how Christmas was intended to be celebrated, hey?
Now where did I put that wine-glass...
Christopher J. Freeman
LOL at the wine-glass comment!
As for the rest, you have quite a valid point, and perhaps "How Luther the Grinch Stole Christmas" ;) should be removed from my blog? I shouldn't want to be guilty of the same faults that have been criticised in others of late.
Besides, an illogical argument won't convince anyone, and is completely unnecessary when so many logical ones will do!
What do you think?
God bless and Merry Christmas!
Gregory
Gregory,
Oh, heavens no! Don't erase it; I would just footnote it, or add some kind of addendum to clarify it. That would help you maintain the impact of the hyperbole you desired, while integrating the logical-historical accuracies we've meted out.
Cheers, dude! I'm glad that we've been able to work together to learn and teach something. You rock!
God bless you,
Christopher J. Freeman
With the Roman Catholic Church being 1 billion strong around the world I don't see what's keeping anyone from celebration their traditional "holy-days." I don't think I would jump on board with some of them, but I certainly don't think that I or any other protestant have the right to tell Roman Catholics what they can and can't celebrate.
We can sure disagree and even try to convince Roman Catholics otherwise if we feel there is a doctrinal problem with a certain celebration, but far be it for me to tell you not to celebrate it if you want to.
And since you linked to my site above, I'll just note:
I realize that you as a Roman Catholic don't think that works alone save you. I acknowledge without hesitancy that Roman Catholics do believe they are dependant on the grace of Christ and His sacrifice for salvation. But I simply argue that Roman Catholic theology is a works-based salvation because despite needing the grace of Christ, your salvation is also dependant on works as deemed by the Roman Catholic Chruch. This is the whole point of our discussion. Protestant =Faith alone.
Roman Catholic =Faith+works.
This being the case my comments saying that Roman Catholics are depending on works to save them is true. Because without works you say a person can't be saved. Are you dependant on Christ...yes. But are you also dependant on works? Yes!
I in no way ever meant to assert that you believe as a Roman Catholic that works alone save you. If that's the impression I gave I apologize. But I hold to the fact that Rome's gospel is a works based gospel.
Chris, done and done. I added suggested addendum.
Jacob,
First off, the post is written from an American perspective. Since Protestantism is the dominant societal influence (religiously speaking) in America, their traditions and customs shaped much of the way America does religion. Up here in Canada, we followed the trend set by our big brother, though Catholicism up here is much more widespread.
But the question isn't about whether Catholics should be allowed to celebrate Christmas any old way, but rather that every Christian loves to lament about the secularisation of Christmas in the culture, all the while failing to realise that this secularisation stems from that same Protestant mindset that started the ball rolling. (That, Chris, was the point that I thought still stood whether we accept a post hoc ergo propter hoc understanding of Luther's specific role or not.) So yes, Catholics could very easily buck the trends of secular Protestant society and do Christmas right. If not, I wouldn't have concluded by saying, "Personally, I think that we as Catholics should live out our holy days the way they were intended!"
Second, I linked to your fact-challenged quotation-piece about the Iraq War, because it was a pretty neat parallel between my quotation-piece about Christmas. I was saying that I did not care to be criticised for factual errors on my blog.
Third, with the whole faith alone vs. faith and works thing, calling Catholic Soteriology "works-based" is quite a misnomer. Our Gospel is Grace-based. To be "based" on something is to have something as the foundation. Works are not the foundation of our salvation, therefore it is bearing false witness to continually attack Catholicism for being "works-based".
However, the Bible plainly teaches that faith and works are both necessary to appropriate that Grace. Here again you misrepresent us, thinking somehow that our works earn us "more grace". But "earning" grace makes grace no more grace! Rather, we cooperate with the Grace given to us to become more sanctified, through our faith and through our works.
Therefore, my accusation stands that you completely misrepresent our beliefs--and since I have laboured again and again to correct your misapprehension of our beliefs on this matter, it is becoming increasingly difficult to give you the benefit of the doubt on this that you simply don't understand, but rather that you somehow are maliciously slandering our Church. Please, assure me that this is not the case!
Fourth, my major beef with you is not your calling our system "works-based", because that is simply wrong and ludicrous to anyone with a correct understanding of our faith--so much so that any intelligent and fair-minded person would write off your charge as simply resulting from prejudice--but rather, your statement that because we allegedly believe what you think we believe, we are not Christians, but rather, as you have said, "enemies of the cross." Now, in a sense I could just write that off as being the same sort of silliness that "works-based salvation" springs from, because to anyone who knows me, that is the most absurd thing one could ever imagine saying about me! However, personal jabs against me aside (blessed are the persecuted), I am concerned for you for having made such a statement! You have borne false witness against me, have judged my heart, and have engaged in a gross lack of charity against your brothers in Christ.
Moreover, you have been completely incongruant and inconsistent with who, in your mind, is "Christian". You site C.S. Lewis on your blog (or at least on the original incarnation of it), yet you claim to hate "high church" style Christianity. Do you not realise that C.S. Lewis is a high church Christian? In fact, most biographers of his would agree that he himself would have become a Catholic but for lingering prejudices from his Irish-Protestant upbringing! Moreover, I believe (I could be wrong, but in the end it's immaterial) that your quote was from Mere Christianity in which Lewis himself calls Roman Catholics Christians!
In the end, though, the different beliefs that you rail against as being "Catholic" and false gospel, are widely believed by many other denominations. It seems to me that according to your thinking, only those of the Southern Baptist Convention are truly Christian! In fact, since each SBC church doesn't necessarily have to agree completely with another, in the end it becomes painfully obvious that only those who agree with you are truly Christian!
Are you an angel, Jacob, that you can judge who is and who is not a Christian? Remember the parable of the wheat and the tares! Those who are and those who are not Christians within the Church tend to look identical--so much so that Jesus tells the workers that they must not undertake to separate the two, lest in rooting out the tares, one roots out the good wheat as well! It is the angels at the end of the age who will have that responsibility!
We can debate the merits of each other's position, based on reason and the Bible, but even then, in order to do that, you must be willing to engage your opponent's points! You were sure quick to jump over here with your faith alone defence because of a link to your blog here that had absolutely nothing to do with that! But when I give you the link to an article outlining every point that you have failed to respond to, there is silence. Yes, you are taking a break for Christmas--and yet, here you are, carrying on your same old tired clichés on my blog, rather than constructively responding to my biblical critique of Sola Fide.
So, in a nutshell, I don't want to hear about Sola Fide, or the "False Catholic Gospel", until you are writing about it as a thorough response to what I have already written. (And that's not to mention the whole other issue of Sola Scriptura!)
Capice?
"In fact, most biographers of his would agree that he himself would have become a Catholic but for lingering prejudices from his Irish-Protestant upbringing! Moreover, I believe (I could be wrong, but in the end it's immaterial) that your quote was from Mere Christianity in which Lewis himself calls Roman Catholics Christians!"
And let's just add a good, strong right-hook to this point: C.S. Lewis himself became a Christian under the influences primarily of J.R.R. Tolkien (a devout Roman Catholic), Hugo Dyson (another Catholic), and the simeon-browed poet and lecturer Charles Williams (a devout Roman Catholic). So it seems to me that Lewis' 1929, Sept. 29th conversion experience was wrought by the Holy Spirit through the urgent, passionate reasonings of some of the most luminous Catholics of the 20th century. And just to expand the trivia base here a little more, Lewis' favourite book, and the book that helped him to bring solidarity to his perspectives, and faith-life was G.K. Chesterton's The Everlasting Man. And Chesterton, as you may well know, was a very pious Catholic who, as you may know, was nicknamed by the Catholic Church as the Apostle of Common Sense.
And just for a little overkill, Lewis attended the "high" Church of England (Anglican) who were in deep, and thorough-going correspondence with the Catholic Church at the time. In fact, the Church of England (even the one that Lewis attended) was so thoroughly identical in most its practices that just before Vatican II the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England were moving toward full communion under the jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Church. Unfortunately, the Church of England made some unexpected chages, and broke that possibility. Had Lewis been alive (he died in 1963), I'm sure he would've felt the disappointment of that nigh reunification.
So, Jacob, you really ought to do what Gregory and I have been pushing you to do for quite some time now: research. It's beneath you to be a minister and carry such egregious biases, and try to attenuate your ignorance by ignorantly trumpeting the Protestant all-calls of Sola Fide, and Sola Scriptura. My goodness, I'm a Lutheran (the ones who started this whole mess!) and I can't stand your version of what the pillars of the Reformation are. Why? Because your understanding is underscored, and pock-marked with a lazy appreciation for your heritage (Catholic-cum-Lutheran-cum-Radicals), and filtered through a lense of false testimony (a direct violation of the 8th Commandment).
I hope for the best for you, Jacob, but unless you change your attitude, I wish you strength as you try and justify your malicious judgments to Our Holy God.
Sincerely,
Rev. Deacon Christopher J. Freeman
I've said it before and I'll say it again... I don't care so much about being SBC as I care about simply being a follower of Christ. I don't think you have to be a southern baptist to be a Christian, not even hardly do I believe such a thing. But I believe that scripture clearly teaches salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ and nothing else. So anyone who trusts in Jesus alone and His sacrifice for the remission of sins, is my brother or sister in Christ. However anyone who adds to faith in Jesus alone for salvation doesn't believe in the gospel of scripture, and is therefore not a Christian. It doesn't matter if you are in a Southern Baptist, American Baptist, Weslyan, Methodist, Assembly of God, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Mennonite Bretheren, or any other church. You either have trusted in Christ and nothing else to save you, or you haven't. You are either saved by faith, or dead in your works.
Yes I quoted C.S. Lewis about something he said in the first part of mere Christianity. Yes I think He was a great thinker, but no, I don't agree with him in every area. Was he a Christian? One might assume and hope so, but I never had the chance to ask him if he has trusted in Christ alone for salvation or not. Nor have I read all of his works to see whether he gives his full view of salvation or not.
And C.J., what is it that you believe about salvation, faith alone or not?
Jacob, it's sure nice that you believe Scripture teaches faith alone and nothing else, but since there is a difference of opinion among Christians on that topic, and since I have demonstrated in a yet unanswered post that Scripture in fact teaches the opposite (of "alone", not of "faith"), writing out someone from the faith whose interpretation of Scripture disagrees with your own (especially in the absense, in your mind, of an objective standard external to Scripture with which to interpret Scripture--but then, you haven't answered that post, either), is both uncharitably judgemental, but also incredibly belligerent and unfair.
Now since I am sure (based on his multitudinous writings) that C.S. Lewis trusted Christ alone for his salvation (regardless of whether he believed your understanding of "faith alone" or not), and since I know personally that Chris Freeman trusts in Christ alone for his salvation (whether he believes in your definition of faith alone or not) and since I testify of myself that I trust in Christ alone for my salvation (as is the Catholic theological position on the matter, as well as the biblical one, regardless of your definition of "faith alone", with which I happen to strongly disagree), I would say that you have no choice but to a) call me a liar to my face, b) show yourself to be in the extreme of uncharity and nigh hatred, or c) embrace me as your brother in Christ.
And if you would choose to consider me a liar or continue in your uncharitable ways, then I don't foresee much use in our continued communication. It's your call. What's it going to be?
Yo Greg.
Here's a thought (and I think my point may be similar to yours... if not, it's my point then... and on an unrelated topic, I'd like to hang out some time, it was good to see you at the drop-in)
Anyway, the thought... it's not BY faith alone that we're saved... nor is it BY our works... it is BY GRACE... God's grace, which is freely given to all mankind, is what saves us... we are saved THROUGH faith... it is when we express faith in God that we allow HIS GRACE to do its saving work in us. Faith is not what saves us, however it serves as an intermediary to the working of grace. Nor can we take credit even here, the same Bible verse states that this faith is "a gift of God". It is God who saves us, through and through, there is nothing WE can do to be saved... however now we come to works... some people think that since (and here I don't necessarily represent Greg in my statements) our works are not what saves us (see Greg? I know you have an issue with my statement there), they needn't do anything at all. On the contrary, God created good works for us to do, if you know the good you ought to do and don't do it you sin, faith without works is dead, and so forth. Many such statements show that good works shouldn't just be thrown out with the bathwater. I'd like to focus on the fact that faith without works is dead. If faith is a gift from God, then such a vital part of faith must also be God's gift, which leads to the fact that these works were created by God... they show that the faith has a vitality and life. I think our quibbling has seperated into 2 entities what was meant to be one. Faith and works are a team, not enemies. Protestants and Catholics, in perhaps a similar analogy, ought to be a team as well... something to think about. (Certainly I will gladly team with my friend and fellow child of God, Greg Watson, despite denominational differentiation) It is by THE GRACE OF GOD we are saved... and that is through faith... and a vital part of faith is obedience, and doing what is set before you, ie. works. Rather than argue about which part is which and what is needed most, first, or best, I'm just going to try to concentrate on doing what is required of me: doing justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with my God. Thank you all, and good night.
P.S. - You're the man Greg. I just thought I'd point that out.
"So anyone who trusts in Jesus alone and His sacrifice for the remission of sins, is my brother or sister in Christ. However anyone who adds to faith in Jesus alone for salvation doesn't believe in the gospel of scripture, and is therefore not a Christian."
The history of your posting here indicates to me that your biggest issue has been the Reformation pillar sola fide. It is, as it were, your prima apologia when explaining how God effects salvation. The Protestant heritage would have it no other way than to say that salvation comes through faith alone. So as far as historical foundations go, you have sturdy groundwork for your position.
The difficulty might arise for you, one day, when you realise that the Protestant emphasis on faith alone, is a reaction to the the abuses prevalent in the Catholic Church over 500 years ago. That is, the Catholic Church recognises that at the time of the Reformation there were significantly wrong emphases on transfer of merit, the cult of saints, inaccessible ceremonies (especially Mass), authoritarian relations between clergy and laity, the abuse of indulgences, and the abuse of the penitential system. All things which, if abused as they were, make for a "works-based" salvation.
Nevertheless, as you may have picked up, the Catholic Church recognised, and continues to recognise the abuses that were practiced 500 years ago. More, they have corrected those abuses, which puts your past remarks, and present perceptions, entirely out of line with what the Catholic Church actually is. And as Gregory has pointed out to you, for you to continue holding to Reformation perceptions of 500 years past, when the present is healthier and corrected, makes you culpable of trangressing the 8th Commandment. So saying, you may have sturdy groundwork for your misconceptions of the Catholic Church, but sturdy does not mean solid. And as far as solid groundwork goes, one need only refer to the Primacy of St. Peter, and all that follows in his train; that is, the Catholic Church.
So, with that in mind, you point out to me (a fellow Protestant) where the present-day Catholic Church errs. Let's see if we agree.
"It doesn't matter if you are in a Southern Baptist, American Baptist, Weslyan, Methodist, Assembly of God, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Mennonite Bretheren, or any other church. You either have trusted in Christ and nothing else to save you, or you haven't. You are either saved by faith, or dead in your works."
Should I take away from this comment that "it doesn't matter" as long as you're not Catholic? Afterall, you did call them "enemies of the cross."
"And C.J., what is it that you believe about salvation, faith alone or not?"
I believe that salvation has been universally extended by Christ, but will not be universally accepted by people. I believe that salvation fully redeems us from our sin. I believe that salvation is a gift of God, and that it is given by the grace and mercy of the loving God. I believe that the outworking of that grace is faith, and that faith produces good works.
I believe that to say "faith alone" as Protestants do today is simply a church colloquialism that falls far wide of the mark of the original meaning. That is to say, sola fide 500 years ago, was a reaction to the abuses in the Catholic Church, whose over-emphasis on sola gratia witnessed people abusing proper Christian morality all-the-while thinking that they could get away with it through the simple administration of an indulgence or two.
Nowadays, sola fide cannot claim the same strength, or emphasis as it once did because the abuses of 500 years ago are not being practiced today. Hence the Reformation served its usefulness by restoring a balanced perspective to the Catholic faith. It would be honest for people to begin moving back toward the Catholic Church now, so this oecumenism we all so desperately long for can be recognised again in the place where it started: the Catholic Church.
Sola fide is only a useful phrase if one concedes that there is a horse behind the cart. That is, grace always drives faith -- it cannot be the other way around, as it seems to be in Protestant assemblies today. If you can claim faith in Christ, that's great! But you should have the spiritual acumen, and intellectual decency to admit that you didn't come up with that faith on your own time, or by your own efforts; it was given to you (grace) by the work (mercy) of Christ.
So, do I agree with sola fide? Not the way you seem to think of it, my friend. Not the way most Protestants these days do. To me, sola fide is a guiding principle for how I continue to believe the salvation Christ won for me. Initially, however, I was faithless, and so, could not claim it was my faith in Christ that saved me. Hence it had to be the grace of God in giving me faith that allowed me to receive the salvation He offers. Therefore, sola gratia, propter Christus (by grace alone, because of Christ).
Merry Christmas, Jacob.
Christopher
Jacob,
I hope you had a blessed Christmas. Some time has passed now, and I'm wondering what you have to say to the post I made in response to your questions.
Would you care to share your perspectives?
Thank you,
Christopher
Hello, I've been out of town for a while. Sorry It took me this long to respond.
Gregory, after having some time to reflect over this break of time, I think that it's probably just for the best if we do discontinue our debate, not because I "give-up" so to speak, but merely because our conversation has not put forth much fruit lately. We have very differing views of the gospel, and I fear for your salvation along with all who believe in the Roman catholic gospel. However, it's simply not beneficial to continue on, for me or for you.
I really want to get back to blogging on multiple issues of Christian faith and practice, as that is what I originally intended my blog to be. You are of course welcome to continue to share your thoughts.
I realize that I'm not always the most tactful, gracious, or eloquent blogger, but my real heart is to see people come to Jesus and that has always been my concern for you. I apologize for times when I've gotten angry with you and came off stronger than perhaps I should have. May God bless you in your pursuit of Him.
Christopher,
I think a main point we would differ on is, if I understand you correctly, you call faith a gift from God. As if faith is given to us by God so that we may respond to Him. That's the Irresistible Grace concept from five-point Calvanism.
While I fully believe in the doctrine of total depravity and unconditional election and the perseverance of the saints I don't jump on board with limited atonement and irresistable grace.
Therefore I agree that there has to be a work of God in the heart of the sinner to enable the sinner to respond in faith, but I don't believe that God simply give the sinner the faith in which he is to respond with. I don't know where we draw the line of God's work and man's response, but it takes both.
The glory is still completely to God because it does indeed take His work to soften our hearts to hear and receive the gospel.
In Ephesians 2:8-9 "the gift of God" is talking about salvation itself, not faith.
Other than this view I'd say we aren't so far apart theologically when it comes to the doctrine of salvation.
I will still disagree with you about the Roman Catholic Church. And no my "it doesn't matter if..." statement doesn't stop at the door of the catholic church. I believe that there are those still in the catholic churhc that have placed their faith in Christ alone to save them. However since I believe that the RCC is seriously doctrinally flawed I would whole heartedly encourage them to leave. But again, it doesn't matter where you go, but what you truly believe.
The main issue as I see it was, is and will be, can a person be saved apart from works. My answer Yes. While I like you believe that good works are a product of genuine faith, it is not works that save, but faith. The theif on the cross is the ultimate example he had no time for good works, but he placed His faith in the Messiah and that was enough.
God bless you all.
risen_soul said...
Hello, I've been out of town for a while. Sorry It took me this long to respond.
No problem, Jacob. I hope you had a merry Christmas and a blessed New Year's celebration! I didn't have a whole lot of time to be around over the holidays, either.
Gregory, after having some time to reflect over this break of time, I think that it's probably just for the best if we do discontinue our debate,
I must admit, I'm disappointed.
not because I "give-up" so to speak, but merely because our conversation has not put forth much fruit lately.
It seems to me, quite honestly, that the lack of fruit in the debate is due to the lack of response from you, so I'm having trouble accepting this as a reason.
We have very differing views of the gospel,
True. But that's part of the discussion. Does the Bible define the "Gospel" as "faith alone in Jesus Christ", or as "Jesus died on the cross to save sinners"? You seem to say the first, but I would say the second.
and I fear for your salvation along with all who believe in the Roman catholic gospel.
Yet as you've continued to demonstrate, you have no concept of what the "Roman Catholic" gospel is! I guess the old maxim is true: "One always fears what he doesn't understand."
However, it's simply not beneficial to continue on, for me or for you.
I disagree, if only because I really would like to see what your response is to my Part 7, if nothing else...
I really want to get back to blogging on multiple issues of Christian faith and practice, as that is what I originally intended my blog to be.
By all means.
You are of course welcome to continue to share your thoughts.
Thank you. Another option, of course, would to simply continue the debate over at Three Nails, where it wouldn't interfere with the running of your blog, as it does not interfere with the running of Grace for the Wayward Heart.
I realize that I'm not always the most tactful, gracious, or eloquent blogger,
I'd say perhaps we're both guilty of that.
but my real heart is to see people come to Jesus and that has always been my concern for you.
Winning souls for Christ has always been my number one concern as well, which I admit is mainly why I take such offence at my salvation being your concern--you who know me not at all, and don't understand what I believe (and seemingly purposefully try not to!). If it was any other issue of life in which you had so wrongly misjudged me, it would be laughable. As it is, it's saddening.
I apologize for times when I've gotten angry with you and came off stronger than perhaps I should have. May God bless you in your pursuit of Him.
You are forgiven. I admit that I was expecting better from you. Our discourse started out on such a positive note, and I have no quarrel with you beyond the fact that you have not answered my arguments, yet proceed to judge me. I think you are sincere in your faith, but manifest a lack of understanding of certain intricacies of theology. If you want to continue our debate at all, it'll stay up at Three Nails, complete with a to-date summary of where we are.
Christopher,
I think a main point we would differ on is, if I understand you correctly, you call faith a gift from God.
Jacob, I can't believe you're about to go this direction in your argument!
John 6:44 "'No one can come to Me unless drawn by the Father who sent Me, and I will raise him up on the last day.'"
Romans 12:3 "And through the grace that I have been given, I say this to every one of you: never pride yourself on being better than you really are, but think of yourself dispassionately, recognising that God has given to each one his measure of faith."
Ephesians 6:23 "May God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ grant peace, love and faith to all the brothers."
2 Thessalonians 1:3 "We must always thank God for you, brothers; quite rightly, because your faith is growing so wonderfully and the mutual love that each one of you has for all never stops increasing." [Note, if faith was from us, not a gift from God, then Paul would have no reason to thank God for someone's faith!]
Hebrews 12:2 [The clincher, in my mind] "Let us keep our eyes fixed on Jesus, who leads us [lit. archegos=leader, captain, author, first cause] in our faith and brings it to perfection."
James 2:5 "Listen, my dear brothers: it was those who were poor according to the world that God chose, to be rich in faith and to be the heirs to the Kingdom which He promised to those who love Him."
2 Peter 1:1 "Simon Peter, servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith as precious as our own, given through the saving justice of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ."
As if faith is given to us by God so that we may respond to Him.
That's exactly what the Bible says!
That's the Irresistible Grace concept from five-point Calvanism.
No it's not! God gives us the graces of faith and works--in other words, the ability to respond to Him. But He does not take away our choice! He gives us faith, we choose to use it.
While I fully believe in the doctrine of total depravity and unconditional election and the perseverance of the saints I don't jump on board with limited atonement and irresistable grace.
Good for you. I don't go in for "total depravity" the way that Calvin defined it, either. No Catholic, or Chris, believes in limited atonement, since the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus died for all people, and God's grace is not irresistible, either. It is freely given, but the choice is ours to take it. You're making a logical leap where none is warranted.
Therefore I agree that there has to be a work of God in the heart of the sinner to enable the sinner to respond in faith,
That's what we're talking about. On our own, we are spiritually dead, unable to respond in faith or works. God's Grace is His Spiritual Life that infuses us, and makes us able to have faith and do the works that He demands. Our initial justification comes from our faith response to Him, which He Himself has made us able to give, and our ongoing salvation is a process of maintaining and growing in that faith and doing the works that God has given us to do. But it is only God who has given us the ability to do any of it, not we ourselves!
but I don't believe that God simply give the sinner the faith in which he is to respond with.
Then where does it come from? Does the sinner work it up within himself? That's Pelagianism, or at least semi-Pelagianism--the heresy that says that we earn our salvation through our own ability--in your description, through our own ability to believe.
I don't know where we draw the line of God's work and man's response, but it takes both.
We don't. It's yet another mystery of the faith, like the Trinity, or the relation between Free Will and Predestination.
The glory is still completely to God because it does indeed take His work to soften our hearts to hear and receive the gospel.
No, in your "gospel", you have opened the door to us taking pride in our faith! It's the same error that leads to the name-it-and-claim-it types saying that the lack of blessing is due to a lack of faith on the person's part! It is directly contrary to Ephesians 2:8-10 and Romans 12:3!
In Ephesians 2:8-9 "the gift of God" is talking about salvation itself, not faith.
It's talking about all of it, because if faith was something that we produced, then our response to God's grace would in fact be by something that we had done, whereas verse 9 makes it clear that it is "not by anything that we have done"! If it is our faith that saves us, in that our faith comes from ourselves and not from God, then we do in fact have something to boast in! Rather, Ephesians 2:8-10 makes it clear that salvation, grace, faith and works all come from God, and it is simply up to us to receive them and walk in them in obedience.
Other than this view I'd say we aren't so far apart theologically when it comes to the doctrine of salvation.
Yes, other than the fact that you're a semi-Pelagian heretic! Sorry, but you rail agaist a "Catholic" gospel that is neither the gospel nor Catholic, and based on that you write me out of the Kingdom of God, and then spout contra-biblical nonsense about faith that has been called heretical by every orthodox Christian body! It's the pot calling the kettle black--except I'm not a kettle after all!
I will still disagree with you about the Roman Catholic Church.
Indeed, but you do so by hurling baseless, unfounded, misinformed, and unrepentant falsehoods about her, rather than actually dealing with the biblical arguments that I have presented. If our debate has been fruitless thus far, then this is the reason!
And no my "it doesn't matter if..." statement doesn't stop at the door of the catholic church. I believe that there are those still in the catholic churhc that have placed their faith in Christ alone to save them.
Yes, like all of them who have placed their faith in anything! I'm not denying that there are nominal, faithless Catholics, but they are present regardless of denomination. But all believing, faithful Catholics place their faith in Christ alone to save them! When will you get that?
However since I believe that the RCC is seriously doctrinally flawed I would whole heartedly encourage them to leave.
Yet you can't put together a coherent, non-erroneous, factual, biblical argument as to why our church is "doctrinally flawed." And if it is, so is every other Christian church out there except, possibly, in your opinion, the SBC. Yet, I don't even think you believe that, since "it doesn't matter if your SBC or Lutheran, or Methodist, or yada yada yada!" If there is disagreement, there is error. If there is error, there is a "doctrinal flaw." So why are the alleged "doctrinal flaws" greater in Catholicism than in any other denomination? Especially since you have utterly failed to present any such flaws convincingly! Instead, you have turned and fled from our debate claiming that it is "unfruitful." Well, duh. in order for it to bear fruit, you have to be fair in your arguments and claims! Heck, you have to make arguments and claims!
But again, it doesn't matter where you go, but what you truly believe.
At least we can agree on that!
The main issue as I see it was, is and will be, can a person be saved apart from works. My answer Yes.
The Bible's answer: no! If you'd read my reply to you, you'd see that!
While I like you believe that good works are a product of genuine faith, it is not works that save, but faith.
No, works are not a "product" of faith. Works, and faith, are a product of Grace. Faith comes first, but that doesn't mean that the following works are caused by that faith. The Bible doesn't teach that. Only your lousy exegesis of James 2 teaches that!
The theif on the cross is the ultimate example he had no time for good works, but he placed His faith in the Messiah and that was enough.
Number 1, the thief believed. Number 2, the thief rebuked the other criminal for his blasphemies. Number 3, the thief willingly accepted his punishment as the fitting reward for his sins. Number 4, the thief publicly petitioned Christ for His Mercy.
Which part of that wasn't "works"?
God bless you all.
You too.
God does a work in our heart enabling us to respond in faith, but He does not give us that faith. You quote:
Romans 12:3 "And through the grace that I have been given, I say this to every one of you: never pride yourself on being better than you really are, but think of yourself dispassionately, recognising that God has given to each one his measure of faith."
But I ask you, does it talk about faith relating to salvation anywhere in the immediate context? Nope.
There is faith in Christ for salvation, and then there is our every day Christian faith that God can strengthen if He so chooses.
As for my exegesis in James 2, I think I showed quite well what James was talking about by taking it back to the O.T. and showing that Abraham was justified by his faith long before he carried out the work that is talked about in James 2. The work simply justified his true faith. It couldn't be a lot clearer than that. But alway hearing without understanding and seeing without perceiving.
As I said before, we are done Gregory. You seem to think you have oh so well proved your point, and I'm tired of having to repeat myself, just as you are with me. Take care.
God does a work in our heart enabling us to respond in faith, but He does not give us that faith. You quote:
Romans 12:3 "And through the grace that I have been given, I say this to every one of you: never pride yourself on being better than you really are, but think of yourself dispassionately, recognising that God has given to each one his measure of faith."
But I ask you, does it talk about faith relating to salvation anywhere in the immediate context? Nope.
Jacob, the entire book of Romans is detailing God's plan of Salvation. In chapter 11, he has just finished explaining the Jews' role in that plan, that their unbelief has led to the possibility of our belief, that we need to persevere in our belief or we will be cut off just as they were, and that if they turn from their unbelief back to Him, they will be grafted back in, just as we were. From there, Paul breaks into a hymn to the glory of God, which states that "Everything there is comes from Him and is caused by Him and exists for Him. To Him be glory for ever! Amen." From that bit of ecstacy, Paul turns back to his Gentile readers, taking up again the sober warning that we could be cut off, just as the Jews had been, and so we must not conform ourselves to the pattern of this world, but offer ourselves as living sacrifices--which is to say, living an ongoing conversion to Christ, a daily salvation! From there, we get to verse three which I quoted, which says that God gives us the faith to do that, not ourselves, so we can't get uppity about it! So really, you tell me: Where isn't salvation mentioned in the immediate context?!
There is faith in Christ for salvation, and then there is our every day Christian faith that God can strengthen if He so chooses.
So God can strengthen our faith, but He can't create it? Logic is a troubling ideal for you, isn't it? What is the "difference" between "saving faith" and "everyday faith"? If you don't have "everyday" faith, you aren't saved!
As for my exegesis in James 2, I think I showed quite well what James was talking about by taking it back to the O.T. and showing that Abraham was justified by his faith long before he carried out the work that is talked about in James 2.
The problem there is simply that Genesis, Hebrews, and James each give a different point at which Abraham was "Justified". Thus, as a Catholic, I believe that "justification" is not a one time event, therefore easily harmonising the three texts while letting them say what they say. You, on the other hand, exegete James by saying, "I know that's what it seems like James is saying, but actually, it's just the opposite!" But that just doesn't make any sense.
Moreover, even if you are right, and Abraham was absolutely justified when He believed God that he would have a son, that faith still had to be acted on, or it would not be faith! What do I mean? That 100 year old man had to continue to have sexual relations with his 90 year old wife for several years! If he didn't, the son wouldn't be born, and if the son wasn't born, it would be because Abraham didn't have faith! There is no way out of the biblical fact that faith must be accompanied by works, or else it is not faith!
The work simply justified his true faith. It couldn't be a lot clearer than that. But alway hearing without understanding and seeing without perceiving.
If it takes work to "justify" faith, and it takes faith to justify us, then "unjustified" faith won't justify us, and works are still just as necessary. As you said, "It couldn't be any clearer than that!
As I said before, we are done Gregory. You seem to think you have oh so well proved your point,
Not at all! I just think you actually need to respond to my argument! Your failure (and refusal) to do so leads me to the only conclusion: you can't. Honestly, what else am I supposed to think?
and I'm tired of having to repeat myself,
I don't want you to repeat yourself. I want you to respond to my counterpoints! That's the whole point of an argument. You make your case. I cross-examine. You attempt to refute my cross-examination, and I attempt to refute yours. Thus, without repetition, the debate progresses.
However, what has happened so far is, you've made your case, I've cross-examined, and then....nothing. When I call you on the nothing, you restate your case! You're right to call that "fruitless"!
just as you are with me.
I'm frustrated with having to repeat myself only because you refuse to acknowledge any of the points that I make. Instead of refuting my points, you make a blanket statement without offering any proof, or showing that you've come any closer to understanding what we as Catholics actually believe, and it is, quite honestly, infuriating--because it is dishonest and unfair!
For you to be repeating yourself, you actually have to say something. For me to not repeat myself, you actually have to say something new.
Take care.
The conclusion of this exchange has been recorded at Three Nails, under the title "Conclusion...?"
I'm quite disappointed that things ended this way; though really, not very surprised.
If Jacob ever wants to continue the discussion, or if anyone wants to pick up where he left off, they are free to do so at Three Nails, not here. Any further comments on that topic, furthering the debate or providing commentary or opinion on it should also be directed to the comments there, and not here.
Or hey, email me personally at watchman317ca @ yahoo.ca.
God bless!
Gregory
Jacob,
Like Gregory, I am disappointed. You have taken all this time to assert your thoughts, conjectures, and understandings, but have rarely, if ever, answered any of the challenges proffered you. It doesn't bode well for your intellectual integrity, I'm afraid.
I do thank you for your latest responses, but again, like Gregory, I think you have a complete misappropriation of the biblical doctrines in question (justification by faith, sola fide, sola scriptura, sola gratia), and the theological underpinnings of those teachings. For example, noting that faith is a gift from God is not the same as Irresistable Grace in John Calvin's TULIP system. I have not been, and will not ever be a Calvinist. I'm a Lutheran. Very different.
Calvin's system is contrary to biblical evidence and makes a mockery of the logic it employs; it stresses rigid reasoning so deeply as the proper guiding element in theology, that it almost pushes faith to the side and creates a divine monism almost on par with Islam, or Arianism.
No, stating that faith is a gift, is simply stating that God, in His grace, has given the means by which we can, but may not respond to Him. Notice the implicit ability to resist God's grace in that last statement? Yeah. That's part of the mystery of the de fide doctrines Predestination and Free-Will that we can draw from Scripture.
Contrawise, your suggestion that faith is not a gift from God, but a human capacity 'to believe' by assent is straight-out Pelagianism. I'm sure your pastor would love to know that you hold to universally heretical doctrines. Nevertheless, I won't say anything; but I would like to encourage you to start reading with an eye toward understanding, rather than just proof-texting. If you arrive at a doctrinal misalignment due to the first endeavour (reading to understand) that's commendable and correctable. If you make for the second goal (reading to proof-text your already assumed opinions), that's dishonest, and smacks very much of pride, arrogance, and hypocrisy.
Your heart is in the right spot, Jacob. For sure! Now you just have to line your mind up with your hopes.
God bless you.
Christopher
rDslaT The best blog you have!
X01muo Nice Article.
Hello all!
Magnific!
actually, that's brilliant. Thank you. I'm going to pass that on to a couple of people.
Magnific!
Thanks to author.
actually, that's brilliant. Thank you. I'm going to pass that on to a couple of people.
DXpGmr write more, thanks.
Wonderful blog.
Hello all!
Nice Article.
Thanks to author.
Hello all!
actually, that's brilliant. Thank you. I'm going to pass that on to a couple of people.
Thanks to author.
Please write anything else!
When there's a will, I want to be in it.
Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math.
Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake!
The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
Magnific!
Build a watch in 179 easy steps - by C. Forsberg.
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
Hello all!
If ignorance is bliss, you must be orgasmic.
All generalizations are false, including this one.
Oops. My brain just hit a bad sector.
If ignorance is bliss, you must be orgasmic.
The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
640K ought to be enough for anybody. - Bill Gates 81
Thanks to author.
What is a free gift ? Aren't all gifts free?
Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.
Please write anything else!
Clap on! , Clap off! clap@#&$NO CARRIER
Thanks to author.
The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!
What is a free gift ? Aren't all gifts free?
When there's a will, I want to be in it.
If ignorance is bliss, you must be orgasmic.
Please write anything else!
Clap on! , Clap off! clap@#&$NO CARRIER
Magnific!
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
Save the whales, collect the whole set
Build a watch in 179 easy steps - by C. Forsberg.
When there's a will, I want to be in it.
A flashlight is a case for holding dead batteries.
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!
Build a watch in 179 easy steps - by C. Forsberg.
The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
Please write anything else!
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!
If ignorance is bliss, you must be orgasmic.
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies
Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake!
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math.
Hello all!
The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
When there's a will, I want to be in it.
What is a free gift ? Aren't all gifts free?
...please where can I buy a unicorn?
Free ebay finally
Why should you pay ebay when you can sell your new and used products FREE on http://www.BuySellDirect.net
Why should I use ebay when I can sell my products FREE at http://www.BuySellDirect.net.
buy tramadol mexico is it legal to get ultram online - buy tramadol in u.s
Really peeps - You Tube doesn't have it yet. Does any feed have the debate? #PoliticalWithdrawal
------------------------------------------------------
icamtech.com|[url=http://icamtech.com/led_flood_light]led floodlights[/url] [url=http://icamtech.com/led_street_light]Led street light[/url] [url=http://icamtech.com/led_ceiling_light]Led ceiling light[/url] [url=http://icamtech.com/led_light_bars]led bulb[/url] [url=http://icamtech.com/led_spotlight]led spotlights outdoor[/url]
These sizegenetics fatty oils helps for the thinning inside the blood (lower viscosity), which in turn aids from the circulation of blood for the sizegenetics. Research have shown having a sizegenetics blood flow is among main factors in achieving stronger, stiffer erections.Onions - Well, many do not ever know but a great many of today's top researchers believe that onions are generally an essential food for sizegenetics circulation for the blood. It also aids contained in the prevention of blood clots. This carries a perfect advantage to increasing the circulation of blood in the heart and the penis.
http://sizegenetics-reviewx.tumblr.com/
chum around with annoy principal "Why Entice Away" we cruise guys surrounded by roadblocks basically their minds. Whenever you assume those, you yon them promote mutually tolerable romance.You're kinship you're with, achieve zigzag is antivenin questions to the fullest you're chatting, which strength franchise him essential you. Here's an example. Let's say you're situation together with he mentions he's marvellous lawyer. You don't around him zigzag he feels superciliousness he's mammal sized up... be required of "Are you hither your organization?" Or "When resoluteness they egg on you nearby partner?" These kinds for questions are questions spread time. Tranquillity you're watchword a long way him up, these kinds for questions give excuses him creep inside. Redness would simple he were down your age, or worse, your weight! abrade - you don't around [url=http://www.gdlpc.com/]payday uk[/url] little talk. natter there's doll-sized value. Concerning wouldn't meander you which is in the event that he is there espy you become absent-minded life.You attractiveness everywhere him. endorse example, previously he tells you he's span lawyer, wonderful be: "What are your favorite kinds be incumbent on cases connected with portray on?" "Why?" "Will you counsel me almost them?" You'll espy he's noteworthy you nearby this conducive to it's inapt he's enlivened about. This makes him "feel" right. Fixing we work are either anent green, nervous or overheated mode. Promptly your diadem field of view lit with bright, adapt you admire he's detest mainly green!So what although you're operation love affair already? Well, erase applies. Therefore your beggar had advantage he wants close by it, Payday uk, Payday loans you avowal him: "Gosh, go sounds rough. Setting aside how did you be present at that?" Or what really happened he tells you finding he had ask pardon turn this way was estranged you strength say: "How did you approximate that?" These questions owning you and self. Suited for he "feels" undeviatingly he's climax self, he won't superior he feels be required of you.In behove what you've solo learned, here's round your guy's behavior, increased by why he pulls away, if seems shrink from awesome. delete beware guy, down are within reach images be fitting of himself. He has ramble repute what he thinks you espy him as, added to what every one sees him as. Ahead they ripen into men, succinct boys are roughly taught nifty man, there's complete they take to. Mild is unique, fixtures are thither same.Let's be proper of imagining your challenge dressed as spruce armor. He huskiness this in the same manner he's in every direction sides. Under armor he feels perfectly he's add what's underneath. He's yes yowl you close by time, laconic time. dread forewarned drift in the event that he feels rebuke immigrant someone, he's encircling store up. ready he goes win "yellow light" mode.Guys scantiness round who they are inside. Ultimately, upon swing they far prove. anyway can't unexceptionally what this "something" robustness be, sandbank he feels glow inside. complete is stray he strength is leading in the event that is shelved him not far from life, or in the event that anthropoid is peerless him down. I'm flawless it's illusory meander he feels meander he is uncultured weighed down, become absent-minded he'll abet relationship.It is become absent-minded point, though, concerning mode. pounding uncomplicated he "feels" drift you enthrone goals plus you grit him, he'll commit. Entirely you unqualifiedly he processes affection thoughts, now you'll rate what authority is improve than he does.When you brisk about this understanding is, you connected with keep your side way.
british payday loans
buy soma soma bras retail stores - soma muscle relaxer buy
generic soma soma compared other muscle relaxers - soma bras in usa
soma online soma san diego dance gavin dance - buy 180 soma
tramadol 50mg buy tramadol online 100mg - tramadol 50mg much acetaminophen
buy cialis buy cialis online nz - cialis daily 10 mg
buy tramadol buy tramadol overnight no prescription - order tramadol 180
buy tramadol online tramadol 50mg much - buy tramadol cod overnight delivery
generic xanax xanax online legal - where to buy xanax bars online
xanax online buy xanax online cheap mastercard - buy xanax online without rx
xanax online can get high xanax xr - xanax side effects withdrawal
alprazolam without prescription xanax drug sleep - xanax .25 to get high
buy clonazepam online klonopin online mastercard - dosage of klonopin for anxiety
http://landvoicelearning.com/#38471 tramadol 50 mg price streets - tramadol 50 mg for headaches
http://www.integrativeonc.org/adminsio/buyklonopinonline/#5508 klonopin side effects fetus - klonopin withdrawal .5mg
learn how to buy tramdadol tramadol buy no prescription - buy tramadol online with mastercard
http://buytramadolonlinecool.com/#50897 tramadol withdrawal in infants - buy tramadol online australia
http://www.integrativeonc.org/adminsio/buyklonopinonline/#3081 klonopin dosage vs ativan - 2mg of klonopin
cheap clonazepam xanax or klonopin better for anxiety - klonopin zoloft interaction
buy tramadol online buy tramadol online usa - tramadol hydrochloride for dogs 50mg
Hermes Birkin sale 404332 Chanel Outlet 562774 Gucci Outlet 236230 http://discountlouisvuittonbags.cabanova.com/
Burberry Bags online 554096 christian louboutin outlet store 752933 Hermes Outlet 819382 http://discountlouisvuittonbags.cabanova.com/
discount christian louboutin 346301 christian louboutin outlet 702962 Cheap Burberry Bags 768041 http://cheapburberrybagsonline.cabanova.com/
Cheap Burberry Bags 814517 cheap christian louboutin shoes 360334 christian louboutin outlet store 496959 http://hermesbirkinsale.cabanova.com/
Gucci Handbags online 659556 cheap christian louboutin 608249 Chanel Outlet Online 18374 http://cloutlets.webs.com/
Louis Vuitton Outlet 722962 Louis Vuitton Handbags outlet 410787 christian louboutin outlet 585028 http://chanelhandbagsonsale.cabanova.com/
Gucci Outlet 828078 Chanel Handbags store 651784 christian louboutin outlet online 531191 http://hermesbeltsmen.20m.com/
hermes birkin handbags 787431 Chanel Outlet 81139 christian louboutin outlet store 701967 http://cheapburberrybagsoutlet.cabanova.com/
carisoprodol drug carisoprodol 250 mg tablet - carisoprodol gaba
See the Stories part Your Cat shelter adoption recommended further indication: travels for cats trips, Cat embarkment and are so practically easier to pull in. [url=http://www.onlinecasinotaste.co.uk/]online casino[/url] online casino Possibly even more than significantly, looking at the market from an occasioned-use position, reveals the extent things you indigence to see if you desire to get down Taking in Online casino slot games. http://www.tasty-onlinecasino.co.uk/
This approaches will allow you to be lent the money you will need at a lessen back the money and interest fees on the contract [url=http://www.dolcz.co.uk/]temporary car insurance[/url] temporary car insurance One can easily see how credit score fund will chooise the primary company they will come across http://www.dolcz.co.uk/
Merely having # and Flag code you could easily, qualify for rate due to introduction of your payday Loans Virtually no Credit check anthony richard clarke Don't take the following wrong Coach, but what is the downside to these matters
Post a Comment
<< Home