<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.7" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Elmer Fudd said it succinctly&#8230;</title>
	<link>http://thoughtpaths.com/archives/172</link>
	<description>ThoughtPaths with Ken Wilson et al</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 09:37:21 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: kwilson</title>
		<link>http://thoughtpaths.com/archives/172#comment-112</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2007 20:55:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thoughtpaths.com/archives/172#comment-112</guid>
					<description>We disagree mostly.

I see a vast difference, or the Reformation would have been a minor event. On further reivew, the comment about difference has a decidedly ecumenical tone, almost reminiscent of the postmodern theology of much of the Emerging Church, (as articulated for example by Grenze and Franke in Beyond Foundationalism). In this I dissagree most strenously.

Further, I do not see your interpretation of the Catholic position as what is promulgated by them to their flock. It cetainly does not appear to be what they grasp and attempt to apply.

Lastly, I would disagree with your interpretation of Luther's statements as extending down to the fine minutiae of life level. Again you would be in constant jeopardy, which is not where I think Luther (or others) were pointing. Quite the opposite.

Clearly we disagree, but that's how it goes some times - in theology and in life...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We disagree mostly.</p>
<p>I see a vast difference, or the Reformation would have been a minor event. On further reivew, the comment about difference has a decidedly ecumenical tone, almost reminiscent of the postmodern theology of much of the Emerging Church, (as articulated for example by Grenze and Franke in Beyond Foundationalism). In this I dissagree most strenously.</p>
<p>Further, I do not see your interpretation of the Catholic position as what is promulgated by them to their flock. It cetainly does not appear to be what they grasp and attempt to apply.</p>
<p>Lastly, I would disagree with your interpretation of Luther&#8217;s statements as extending down to the fine minutiae of life level. Again you would be in constant jeopardy, which is not where I think Luther (or others) were pointing. Quite the opposite.</p>
<p>Clearly we disagree, but that&#8217;s how it goes some times - in theology and in life&#8230;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: cnaphan</title>
		<link>http://thoughtpaths.com/archives/172#comment-111</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2007 20:36:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thoughtpaths.com/archives/172#comment-111</guid>
					<description>People have little interest in what was said in the 50's, let alone the 500's.

Anyways, there are still quite a few serious points of difference between the Reformed and Catholic position, but "sola gratia" is not really one of them. 

For instance, Catholics believe that a sin, after baptism, puts your salvation in jeopardy. Your relationship with God is impaired until repentance is made, possibly resulting in eternal damnation. Luther, as well, said that repentance is like a plank by which you swim back to the ark of your baptism, the implication being that if you don't swim, you don't get back on the boat. But I'm pretty sure you'd disagree with this notion, right?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>People have little interest in what was said in the 50&#8217;s, let alone the 500&#8217;s.</p>
<p>Anyways, there are still quite a few serious points of difference between the Reformed and Catholic position, but &#8220;sola gratia&#8221; is not really one of them. </p>
<p>For instance, Catholics believe that a sin, after baptism, puts your salvation in jeopardy. Your relationship with God is impaired until repentance is made, possibly resulting in eternal damnation. Luther, as well, said that repentance is like a plank by which you swim back to the ark of your baptism, the implication being that if you don&#8217;t swim, you don&#8217;t get back on the boat. But I&#8217;m pretty sure you&#8217;d disagree with this notion, right?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: kwilson</title>
		<link>http://thoughtpaths.com/archives/172#comment-110</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2007 17:35:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thoughtpaths.com/archives/172#comment-110</guid>
					<description>I am actually surprised about the Roman position. You would certainly never know it from those I have spoken to, indicating quite a discrepancy between leadership and what is actually communicated. However their view of both Grace and it's perserverance in the Saints is nonetheless quite different than a classical Reformed one. I see the rest as splitting hair since it didn't change the need for the Reformation.

Bottom line is that so many &lt;em&gt;saved&lt;/em&gt; individuals (of all flavours, but particularly addressing those closest at hand on the Protestant side of the fence) seem to still embrace a life of little or no assurance, and continued Salvation based upon moment to moment behaviour and works related performance. I have repeatedly heard it harped on as a means to elicit proper behaviour. All it does it repress people and I think it is dead wrong.

As to the rest, God is absolutely sovereign in all things, including the eternity of each of His own. I would disagree that things are a tenuous as you appear to think for the elect. However, since He is sovereign, we are at His good pleasure and for His Glory alone.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am actually surprised about the Roman position. You would certainly never know it from those I have spoken to, indicating quite a discrepancy between leadership and what is actually communicated. However their view of both Grace and it&#8217;s perserverance in the Saints is nonetheless quite different than a classical Reformed one. I see the rest as splitting hair since it didn&#8217;t change the need for the Reformation.</p>
<p>Bottom line is that so many <em>saved</em> individuals (of all flavours, but particularly addressing those closest at hand on the Protestant side of the fence) seem to still embrace a life of little or no assurance, and continued Salvation based upon moment to moment behaviour and works related performance. I have repeatedly heard it harped on as a means to elicit proper behaviour. All it does it repress people and I think it is dead wrong.</p>
<p>As to the rest, God is absolutely sovereign in all things, including the eternity of each of His own. I would disagree that things are a tenuous as you appear to think for the elect. However, since He is sovereign, we are at His good pleasure and for His Glory alone.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: cnaphan</title>
		<link>http://thoughtpaths.com/archives/172#comment-109</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2007 17:20:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thoughtpaths.com/archives/172#comment-109</guid>
					<description>Technically, the Church of Rome teaches that grace precedes every good action, even love of God, faith and final perseverance. This teaching was formalized in the canons of the Council of Orange in 529 and promulgated by Pope Boniface II in his encyclical "Per filium nostrum". (http://www.creeds.net/ancient/orange.htm) It's true that some individuals and groups within the Church teach something similar to Arminianism (ie. Luis Molina et al) but no matter how many adherents those theories have, there's no comparison between the authority behind Augustinianism (as upheld at Orange as well as Trent) and the lack of it behind Molinism. Anyways....

Firstly, there's nothing wrong a holy fear of the Final Judgement. There's also nothing wrong with being concerned with not sinning. Of course, these things can develop into obsessions and anxieties, at which times, the prescription is increasing confidence in God, decreasing trust of self and meditation on God's promises, His mercy and Christ's merits.

While it's true that "no scheme of man, no power of Hell" can pluck us from His hand, but you can never be sure if final perseverance, itself a grace, will be given to you. In this world, Christ is a shepherd to both the sheep and the goats and only on that terrible Day of Judgment will the two be separated. You can't just say "I've been given a lot of grace in the past, therefore I must be elected, therefore I will be saved." It's the will of God that some might receive a lot of grace, and still be damned.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Technically, the Church of Rome teaches that grace precedes every good action, even love of God, faith and final perseverance. This teaching was formalized in the canons of the Council of Orange in 529 and promulgated by Pope Boniface II in his encyclical &#8220;Per filium nostrum&#8221;. (http://www.creeds.net/ancient/orange.htm) It&#8217;s true that some individuals and groups within the Church teach something similar to Arminianism (ie. Luis Molina et al) but no matter how many adherents those theories have, there&#8217;s no comparison between the authority behind Augustinianism (as upheld at Orange as well as Trent) and the lack of it behind Molinism. Anyways&#8230;.</p>
<p>Firstly, there&#8217;s nothing wrong a holy fear of the Final Judgement. There&#8217;s also nothing wrong with being concerned with not sinning. Of course, these things can develop into obsessions and anxieties, at which times, the prescription is increasing confidence in God, decreasing trust of self and meditation on God&#8217;s promises, His mercy and Christ&#8217;s merits.</p>
<p>While it&#8217;s true that &#8220;no scheme of man, no power of Hell&#8221; can pluck us from His hand, but you can never be sure if final perseverance, itself a grace, will be given to you. In this world, Christ is a shepherd to both the sheep and the goats and only on that terrible Day of Judgment will the two be separated. You can&#8217;t just say &#8220;I&#8217;ve been given a lot of grace in the past, therefore I must be elected, therefore I will be saved.&#8221; It&#8217;s the will of God that some might receive a lot of grace, and still be damned.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
