Review of "Paul and the Law" (1987) by Heikki Räisänen

FireDragon76 · Aug 21, 2023

fhansen said:
I haven't relied on any "typical Catholic polemics", whatever that is, as far as know, or explicitly stated Luther's position for that matter. And It doesn't matter who says it anyway-it only matters what the truth is. And every person interpreting Scripture becomes their own human magisterium.

So? Theologian and philosopher Keith Ward points out that to be a Protestant is to be committed to a certain degree of liberalism and tolerance of other viewpoints.

fhansen said:
Catholicism simply maintains that God estalblished a church to fulfill that role.

And it's a recipe for abuse.

fhansen said:
So Luther believed Christians should do good works, that faith alone does not mean a faith that is alone?

I wouldn't go that far (as if there is a certain amount of good works that we must do to be faithful), but faith predisposes us to a new relationship towards God and our neighbor. We Protestants don't deny regeneration.

fhansen said:
But, at the same time, that the believer remains unchanged, with a righteousness that is strictly declared of and imputed to him, such that, naturally, it might follow that you should "see no evidence that Christians live any more "justly" than non-Christians". So which is it, do we "improve" by virtue of coming into fellowship with God, or not? Such is the confusion engendered by the doctrine of Sola Fide, which can't quite provide a solid answer to that question.

That's not what any Protestant believes. God's Word does not return empty.

fhansen said:
Real, personal, righteousness is a gift given to the believer at justification. Read Romans and all of the bible in that light and you'll better understand the gospel. And why these verses perfectly align with each other:

I do. I simply don't see St. Paul baptizing Aristotle.

FireDragon76 · Aug 21, 2023

fhansen said:
The ECFs are simply in a better position to know.

That's an appeal to antiquity. It isn't rationally defensible.

fhansen said:
And we don't live in a vacuum-coming up with our own complete theologies out of whole cloth, or strictly from our personal readings-our theologies have preceded us and come prepackaged to one degree or another.

You seem to really have a problem with the implications of Protestant theology, even though there is no problem in logic, only perhaps the possibility that it's existentially unsettling.

Maybe that is the point. You want a Theology of Glory, the Lord has given us a Cross.

The Liturgist · Aug 21, 2023

Mark Quayle said:
Do you think the ECF's have a corner on the market of understanding and interpretation of Scripture?

[/quote]

Certainly the ECFs enjoy substantial advantages benefitting from their proximity to our Lord and His apostles and their distance from our current depraved and degenerate society. Their work is also so substantial that many projects, for example, most works of systematic theology, have struck me as being somewhat pointless, since the orthodox Patristic authorities collectively form a coherent theology, and this is centralized in the work of St. John of Damascus. I am reasonably sure that neither the Summa Theologica, nor the Institutes of Calvin, nor Karl Barth’s ponderous Church Dogmatics, were strictly speaking necessary or vital to the continued health and stability of the Christian religion.

Further, however, I dispute the notion that the ECF's as known currently, are all that there were, that read and interpreted. To put it another way, I doubt very much that Luther introduced anything new. I didn't find what I did because of Luther or Calvin, but from Scripture and good sense and hard experience.

You won’t find any early church fathers talking about Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura or the other Solas, as these were innovative concepts, and represent a separation of things that the early church fathers uniformly believed should be kept together - faith and works, scripture and tradition, the glory of God and the glorification of man, the uncreated grace of God and our freedom to embrace it, and Christ and His Saints, who followed the path he set to achieve Theosis.

hedrick · Aug 21, 2023

The Liturgist said:
While Calvinism as a whole cannot be refuted scripturally, this particular doctrine, unconditional election, can, as can indeed much of TULIP, which really ought to be considered I think based on my conversations with @hedrick s separate proposition from the actual theology of John Calvin, since TULIP was the work of the Synod of Dort, whereas Calvinism the work of an exceptionally talented, if occasionally misguided theologian with a deep knowledge of Patristics, and since that time there has not been one single Calvinism but rather mutliple Calvinisms, so that the Reformed Catholic Calvinism I am comfortable with, which is liturgical and elegant, is very different from the theology of those churches that embrace, for example, Federal Vision Theology, which I don’t even understand, or the Neo-Orthodoxy of Karl Barth, which I do understand, but happen to disagree with.

So regarding unconditional election, we can regard this as erroneous on the basis that even St. Paul feared of falling away, and our Lord in Matthew 24:24 warns of false christs who will lead astray, if possible, even the elect. What does if possible mean? Well, since Christ our God is omniscient, he is not speculating about whether or not the elect can be lead astray, but rather must, on the basis of His omniscience proposing what I would translate on the basis of dynamic equivalence “if it is possible for a specific member of the elect to be led astray, they are at risk of being led astray by a false Christ.”

There is a specific danger also in the doctrine of unconditional election which is related to the idea of Once Saved, Always Saved, and that is the spiritual danger inherent in assuming oneself to be unconditionally saved, which is as dangerous as assuming oneself to be beyond hope of salvation. And we see in the Patristic corpus numerous warnings of the dangers of this.

Unconditional election would seem to be the least controversial part of TULIP. It says that God’s grace comes first, before we have done anything to.merit it. It sounds like your problem is with perseverence of the saints. This isn’t quite OSAS. OSAS says that once you’re saved you’re always saved, even if you lose faith. Perseverence says that if you are elect, you won’t lose faith.

Teofrastus · Aug 21, 2023

The Liturgist said:
Note that I never mentioned the pseudigraphical 2 Clement. I am only interested in 1 Clement, and frankly while it is an important Patristic writing, it is much less important than the epistles of St. Ignatius the Martyr to the various churches following his arrest in Antioch, while he was en route to Rome, where he was fed to lions in the Arena. Rather I would group 1 Clement with the epistle of St. Polycarp as important Patristic writings that provide moral guidance, but which are not breakthrough works of theology on a par with the Ignatian corpus, or the Apology of St. Justin Martyr, or the seminal theological writings of St. Irenaeus of Lyons against heresies.

Now regarding Romans 4:3, there is nothing in it which contradicts what St. James wrote. But we should remember that Martin Luther did interpolate on his own authority the word “alone” into Romans 3:28, which is one of those actions of Martin Luther which prevent me from venerating him as a saint (the others being his attempt to delete the “antilegomenna”, and his anti-semitic tract. But where Luther argued a disparity between St. Paul and St. James, I see harmony.

A true living faith, as understood by subsequent Lutheran theologians who refined Luther’s early work to account for anomalies such as this, as well as the Early Church Fathers and the Orthodox, Anglican, and Catholic theologians, is a faith that produces good works. Indeed even a full-on TULIP-believing Calvinist will interpret good works as a sign of election, and evil works as the identifying characteristic of a reprobate.

Thus, since the different branches of Protestantism have successfully reconciled the Epistle of James with the Pauline corpus, I regard any attempt to set aside the Epistle of James as amounting to eisegesis. The 27 book canon of the New Testament was handed down to us from St. Athanasius, the same man who defended Christianity against the Arian heresy at Nicaea in 325 as protodeacon to St. Alexander of Alexandria, and who after becoming patriarch of Alexandria, spent much of his career exiled as far away as the dangerous frontier town of Trier, in modern day Germany, which in the fourth century Roman Empire was the Wild West, a place where Greek, the native language of St. Athanasius, was not widely spoken or understood. After returning from this torturous exile without conceding any ground on the doctrine of the faith, and being welcomed back by large crowds into Alexandria, St. Athanasius then proceeded to issue his famous 39th Paschal Encyclical, in which he included the Epistle of James and several other works, some of which were at the time highly controversial, such as Revelation and the Epistle to the Hebrews (since no one knows for sure who wrote that work, although many church fathers believed it was of Pauline provenance, however, it is better written - given that the Church tradition records that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were based on a narration given by St. Paul, and given the exquisite eloquent Greek written by St. Luke the Evangelist, which is matched only by that of Hebrews, I suspect St. Luke wrote it, most likely inspired by a homily St. Paul delivered in Aramaic. But there is of course no definite proof one way or the other.

One thing is for certain, and that is that the epistles of St. James and St. Paul can be reconciled, and most churches have done that, and the result is much better theology than if one merely discards the epistle of St. James.

From Quora (Why did Luther add the word 'alone' to Romans 3:28?):

Luther’s German Bible translates the verse this way: »So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben« (1912 ed.). The German “allein” is translated “alone” in English. Luther’s reasoning is that adding that word in his translation was consistent with good German grammar if one wants to properly translate what the Greek says in that verse.

Adding the “alone” to his translation is consistent to what the verse is saying, and Luther was not the first to do so. Eight others had translated the verse with “alone” well before Luther. Such men were:

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (Og 14.952);
Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961);
Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C);
Ambrosiaster, Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): „sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,“ (through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God); 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130);
John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]);
Cyril of Alexandria, Joannis Evangelism 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to James 2,19]);
Bernard, Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): „solam justificatur per fidem,“ (is justified by faith alone);
Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988); among others.

Teofrastus · Aug 21, 2023

The Liturgist said:
[...] One thing is for certain, and that is that the epistles of St. James and St. Paul can be reconciled, and most churches have done that, and the result is much better theology than if one merely discards the epistle of St. James.

Luther called James the "epistle of straw", but he also said:

Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. (Word and Sacrament I, 395)

The Liturgist · Aug 21, 2023

Teofrastus said:
From Quora (Why did Luther add the word 'alone' to Romans 3:28?):

Luther’s German Bible translates the verse this way: »So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben« (1912 ed.). The German “allein” is translated “alone” in English. Luther’s reasoning is that adding that word in his translation was consistent with good German grammar if one wants to properly translate what the Greek says in that verse.

Adding the “alone” to his translation is consistent to what the verse is saying, and Luther was not the first to do so. Eight others had translated the verse with “alone” well before Luther. Such men were:

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (Og 14.952);

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961);

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C);

Ambrosiaster, Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): „sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,“ (through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God); 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130);

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]);

Cyril of Alexandria, Joannis Evangelism 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to James 2,19]);

Bernard, Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): „solam justificatur per fidem,“ (is justified by faith alone);

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988); among others.

It is difficult to me to accept this list from Quora with credulity given that since Origen* and Saints John Chrysostom, Basil (presumably Basil the Great) and Cyril the Great, also known as St. Cyril of Alexandria, and as far as I am aware, Blessed Theophylact, were Hellenophones, they would have neither a need nor a reason to translate the Epistle to the Romans. Furthermore, in all cases, Latin titles are supplied for their works, rather than the original Greek titles, which makes me suspect that what this list is inadvertently doing is enumerating church fathers whose works were translated into Latin with the word “alone” interpreted.

Nor do I accept the argument that inserting “allein” was necessary to preserve good German grammar, given that the Luther Bible largely defined what was and was not proper Hochdeutsche for centuries to come, and given that Luther’s interopolation of alone into Romans 3:28 was highly controversial at the time, moreso than the inclusion of the Epistle of James ever was in antiquity, which takes us to the next part of your argument.

In antiquity, the Epistle of James was not really all that controversial. Since the Eusebian Canon generally agreed with the Athanasian, albeit with the inevitable scholarly qualifications the somewhat obsequious ecclesiastical historian tended to affix to everything, the true rival scriptural canon that the 27 book Athanasian Canon wound up competing with is the 22 book canon used by the Syriac Peshitta, which exluded 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude (because it quoted 1 Enoch) and Revelation. These books were recognized from the start as canonical by the Syriac Orthodox Church due to that church having close ties with the Coptic Orthodox Church, where the importance of St. Athanasius is fully appreciated, and consequently the missing books were incorporated into the Western Peschito from the somewhat more obscure Harklean Bible, the Syriac translation by Thomas of Harqel.

By the way @Teofrastus despite disagreeing with you in this case I find myself impressed with the depth of your domain-specific knowledge on Lutheranism, and I hope you will join our two existing highly knowledgeble and intelligent Lutheran members, my dear friends @ViaCrucis and @MarkRohfrietsch . Are you a member of the Church of Sweden? My godfather was a pastor in the Augustana Synod, which consisted primarily of Swedish-American Lutherans, which alas merged into ELCA via either the ALC or the LCA (I have trouble keeping them apart, which is why I suppose their merger was inevitable, but I find it a bit unfair the Prussian Americans and the Norwegian Americans got to keep their own synods, but not the Swedes).

One area of Swedish Lutheranism that particularly interests me is the 16th century liturgy of the Archbishop of Uppsala, which seems to retain features discarded in other early Lutheran liturgies, such as an anaphora with an epiklesis and a liturgy for holy unction.

The Liturgist · Aug 21, 2023

FireDragon76 said:
That's an appeal to antiquity. It isn't rationally defensible.

I would argue it Is an appeal to qualified authority, which unlike an appeal to unqualified authority, is not actually fallacious. The reasons why the Patristic authorities are in better position to understand the Gospel and the Apostles than we are are manifold, relating to a larger population natively conversant in Koine Greek, cultural similarities, firsthand knowledge or experience of various important events in ecclesiastical history such as the long decades in the mid 4th century when the Arian heretics had the upper hand, especially in the period from the death of St. Constantine to the accession of Julian the Apostate (whose name annoys me, since his predecessor was also arguably an apostate), when the persecution of Christians by the Arians was at its peak intensity, which still paled in comparison to the unmitigated violence of Diocletian and his sadistic henchmen, whose brutality would remain unmatched until the Islamist persecutions of Tamerlane, the Bashi Bazouks in Romania and Bulgaria in the late 19th century, and the massive genocide under officers loosely connected to the Young Turks during the Great War.

fhansen · Aug 21, 2023

FireDragon76 said:
So? Theologian and philosopher Keith Ward points out that to be a Protestant is to be committed to a certain degree of liberalism and tolerance of other viewpoints.

Ok. So first of all that depends on the Protestant, And most everyone has become more tolerant to one degree or another beginning, even, already after the 30 years war. But right off the bat Protestant groups opposed new spin off sects, sometimes violently. Luther didn't consider Zwingli Christian at the end, each arguing with their own private interpretations over the real presence which was a matter that previously had no detractor since the beginning. And the concept you've stated cannot be used to compromise basic truths in any case; at some point everyone draws their line somewhere in the sand, While most Protestants hold to Nicene theology, that naturally excludes JWs as well as Oneness theology, even though they adhere to Sola Scriptura. And other religions are excluded ipso facto-because Christanity is, naturally, a specific system of beliefs which by its nature cannot tolerate any and all beliefs.

FireDragon76 said:
And it's a recipe for abuse.

Yes it is. And everywhere you find humans, including every church in the world, you will find sin and abuse. But that does not mean that God cannot preserve His gospel intact despite using and working through weak human vessels in the process.

FireDragon76 said:
I wouldn't go that far (as if there is a certain amount of good works that we must do to be faithful), but faith predisposes us to a new relationship towards God and our neighbor. We Protestants don't deny regeneration.

Ok, so, again, why would there be a situation where you "see no evidence that Christians live any more "justly" than non-Christians."? The point is that righteousness comes in some form with justification-and we're responsible for continung to walk in it, by the Spirit, under grace. We can resist and reject and run from grace, from God, IOW, at any time. Or we can remain in Him.

"...not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith." Phil 3:9

"But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." Rom 3:21-22

"For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!" Rom 5:17

"And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."
"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God." Rom 8:3-4, 12-14

FireDragon76 said:
That's not what any Protestant believes. God's Word does not return empty.

Well, perhaps you could explain what Protestants believe on the matter then. As it is I've heard a variety of explanations. The real question comes down to whether or not sin can exclude one from the presence of God.

fhansen · Aug 21, 2023

hedrick said:
Unconditional election would seem to be the least controversial part of TULIP. It says that God’s grace comes first, before we have done anything to.merit it. It sounds like your problem is with perseverence of the saints. This isn’t quite OSAS. OSAS says that once you’re saved you’re always saved, even if you lose faith. Perseverence says that if you are elect, you won’t lose faith.

Catholicism also teaches that God's grace comes first, before we have done anything to merit it. But that said grace can still be resisted, refused. Also that, from man's perspective, no one has 100% certainty of being numbered among the elect to begin with, so while the elect will certainly persevere, God alone, knows with perfect certainty who they are.

fhansen · Aug 21, 2023

FireDragon76 said:
That's an appeal to antiquity. It isn't rationally defensible.

Alright, so let's throw out history, including the councils. Each of us can pick up the bible and know the faith perfectly without reference to the past. Let's be tolerant of Arianism, which the church defended against while it threatened to take over the faith, strongly holding sway for centuries. Let's ignore the canonization of the New Testament and come up with our own out of the many writings that were considered for the position at the time. Or throw out the ones we don't like, as at least one Reformer was wont to do.

The ECFs, while not considered inspired or inerrant in the sense that the bible is, nonetheless open the door in very real fashion to what the church actually taught, believed, and practiced. They are essential in better understanding the Christain faith.

fhansen · Aug 21, 2023

FireDragon76 said:
You seem to really have a problem with the implications of Protestant theology, even though there is no problem in logic, only perhaps the possibility that it's existentially unsettling.

Maybe that is the point. You want a Theology of Glory, the Lord has given us a Cross.

I don't see where any of that addressed my post but, either way, I just want a Theology of Truth, God's way, not man's. And if God wishes to raise and glorify man in the process, which it is the nature of love to do, incidentally, then so be it. Because that self-giving love of His, demonstrated on the cross, is His greatest glory.

Mark Quayle · Aug 21, 2023

deleted

Mark Quayle · Aug 21, 2023

also deleted.

1-1/2 year old granddaughter assisting me, hitting buttons and making things happen I don't know how to do.

FireDragon76 · Aug 21, 2023

fhansen said:
Ok, so, again, why would there be a situation where you "see no evidence that Christians live any more "justly" than non-Christians."?

Because I don't. I'm just being honest. There's a difference between Lutheran doctrine, and what I observe.

fhansen said:
The point is that righteousness comes in some form with justification-and we're responsible for continung to walk in it, by the Spirit, under grace. We can resist and reject and run from grace, from God, IOW, at any time. Or we can remain in Him.

In practice, Catholics mean obedience to the Magisterium, not just "walking in the Spirit".

Catholics do have the true Gospel. Luther never denied it. But what Catholics also have are alot of accretions that are of dubious value that we do not have to accept.

hedrick · Aug 21, 2023

fhansen said:
Catholicism also teaches that God's grace comes first, before we have done anything to merit it. But that said grace can still be resisted, refused. Also that, from man's perspective, no one has 100% certainty of being numbered among the elect to begin with, so while the elect will certainly persevere, God alone, knows with perfect certainty who they are.

That’s irresistible grace, which is a separage letter.

The Liturgist · Aug 21, 2023

FireDragon76 said:
Because I don't. I'm just being honest. There's a difference between Lutheran doctrine, and what I observe.

In practice, Catholics mean obedience to the Magisterium, not just "walking in the Spirit".

Catholics do have the true Gospel. Luther never denied it. But what Catholics also have are alot of accretions that are of dubious value that we do not have to accept.

Wait, are you a member of the ELCA? I thought you were in the UCC for some reason.

FireDragon76 · Aug 21, 2023

The Liturgist said:
Wait, are you a member of the ELCA? I thought you were in the UCC for some reason.

I haven't officially transferred membership yet. I just attend UCC.

Mark Quayle · Aug 21, 2023

The Liturgist said:
While Calvinism as a whole cannot be refuted scripturally, this particular doctrine, unconditional election, can, as can indeed much of TULIP, which really ought to be considered I think based on my conversations with @hedrick s separate proposition from the actual theology of John Calvin, since TULIP was the work of the Synod of Dort, whereas Calvinism the work of an exceptionally talented, if occasionally misguided theologian with a deep knowledge of Patristics, and since that time there has not been one single Calvinism but rather mutliple Calvinisms, so that the Reformed Catholic Calvinism I am comfortable with, which is liturgical and elegant, is very different from the theology of those churches that embrace, for example, Federal Vision Theology, which I don’t even understand, or the Neo-Orthodoxy of Karl Barth, which I do understand, but happen to disagree with.

So regarding unconditional election, we can regard this as erroneous on the basis that even St. Paul feared of falling away, and our Lord in Matthew 24:24 warns of false christs who will lead astray, if possible, even the elect. What does if possible mean? Well, since Christ our God is omniscient, he is not speculating about whether or not the elect can be lead astray, but rather must, on the basis of His omniscience proposing what I would translate on the basis of dynamic equivalence “if it is possible for a specific member of the elect to be led astray, they are at risk of being led astray by a false Christ.”

There is a specific danger also in the doctrine of unconditional election which is related to the idea of Once Saved, Always Saved, and that is the spiritual danger inherent in assuming oneself to be unconditionally saved, which is as dangerous as assuming oneself to be beyond hope of salvation. And we see in the Patristic corpus numerous warnings of the dangers of this.

To me it's a little disconcerting, sometimes, that I find myself defending Calvinism and Reformed Theology as if I was a Calvinist et al. I'm not one of them, really, but came to most of the same conclusions without being taught them, based on a few things I was taught by Arminianistic upbringing that are entirely Scriptural (such as God's omnipotence and omniscience), and based on what I have found in Scripture (such as God accomplishing everything he set out to do and nobody being his advisor), and based on reason, (such as the fact that he is the only first cause, and so many things logically implied by that). Not that there isn't more to my story than that, but my point is that when I hear something someone says against, for example, some point within TULIP, I find myself making sure they understand what is meant by the terminology of the point, or some of the necessary implications of what Scripture or reason says, and how it relates to that point, when all along, Calvinism/ Reformed isn't even something I was taught or that I hold to as such.

The fact that there are just about as many different sorts of Calvinism/ Reformed as there are churches involved doesn't mean much to me. I keep seeing that there are as many points of view/ focuses of believers as there are believers, and even words and phrases they hold in common don't mean the me thing to them all —maybe even to any of them. But much of what differentiates what one denomination holds to or focuses on compared to another has to do with the worldview of the different adherents. The same happens to the understanding of those adherents concerning any of the claims of the other denominations. When I hear "Unconditional Election", the main thing that comes to my mind is God's plan, and his grace, and the power of God, but what comes to mind to the self-deterministic believer at the words, "Unconditional Election" is the implied lack of not only personal responsibility of the believer, but even a lack of motivation to obey or to please God.

Well, any truth has apparent inherent pitfalls. While there is reason for diplomacy and for not laying 'too much truth all at once' onto people, avoiding truth or watering it down for the sake of winning numbers or being ecumenically acceptable, is worse.

There is some irony in the fact that Calvinists are accused of the abuses of OSAS, while from another direction they are accused of having no assurance of salvation, never knowing for sure if they are of the Elect.

Anyhow, as for Unconditional Election, it means only what it means, that God does not depend on what he foresees us doing, but only what he has in mind concerning us, for choosing to save us for his ends. It is not because of US that we are saved, but because of God. Whether or not the elect can lose their salvation is irrelevant to the point, in fact, or whether they can "walk away" makes no difference as to whether or not God will accomplish what he set out to do, and to raise them to life everlasting. But that's me. I can't speak for everyone else.

I CAN mention, however, from my own personal experience (when I was very young), my surprise at finding myself unable to claim to not belong to Christ, in an attempt to give myself permission to sin. But that's anecdotal, so....

Mark Quayle · Aug 21, 2023

The Liturgist said:
You won’t find any early church fathers talking about Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura or the other Solas, as these were innovative concepts, and represent a separation of things that the early church fathers uniformly believed should be kept together - faith and works, scripture and tradition, the glory of God and the glorification of man, the uncreated grace of God and our freedom to embrace it, and Christ and His Saints, who followed the path he set to achieve Theosis.

I'm under the impression the very early church fathers hadn't conflated faith with works. But what do I know? The separation of the 5 solas by name was, I think, for the sake of showing their integration, and their efficacy. The one is not without the others, and they (in their full 'form') are not to be added to for efficacy or authority. They, like TULIP, I think, are spelled out as a reaction to false teaching and false worldviews. The list is more "mantra" than dogma. But maybe I'm wrong. I'm no expert on Calvinism or Reformed Theology, but rather, consider my own reasons for believing what I have heard them teach.

Review of "Paul and the Law" (1987) by Heikki Räisänen

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Active Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Oldbie

Oldbie

Oldbie

Oldbie

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency