tehmackdaddy said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Amen. And that is one of my problems with modern day Protestants especially Calvinists. It seems to be my way or the highway. And if it was meant to be like that I often wonder why Jesus used parables.

---

This thread is literally about the supremacy of tradition...or else. How is that anything other than, "my way or the highway"?

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

It's not the supremacy of Tradition being discussed. There are two real aspects.

1. How should we use Tradition to interpret the Scriptures?

2. How should we handle Traditions that go outside the Scripture?

Point 2 is where Rome has had major issues.

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Obedience to the Church over Christ?

---

Quote:

---

I misunderstand Protestantism?

---

tehmackdaddy said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

When everyone says let the scripture speak for itself what they're really saying is let me read it as I like.

---

Then you are misunderstanding protestantism.

Quote:

---

That means no one can be wrong because no one is in submission to anything.

---

We are in submission to the Holy Word of God! We cannot take one passage and interpret it to mean something that is not congruent with the rest of Scripture.

Your argument reminds me of the old-school Protestants who tried to control behavior. They were afraid of liberty because, to them, it meant a license to do anything. That perversion of liberty could not be further from the truth.

It is an understandable fear, but it is one that ultimately subverts the power of Christ and places obedience to the Church above obedience to Christ.

---

XUSCR said:

---

At the end of the day, all Protestants have an authority problem and the thousands of denominations that have developed in their branch of the tree of Christian history is objective proof of that reality. It's every man and his Bible.

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

He's talking about the problem of authority as in: who has it.

You are completely wrong about where we place our faith. Protestantism places its faith in scripture, their confession says so. But this is on the face a novel approach, because no such system could have been instituted by the Apostles. Therefore this is not the faith of the Apostles.

We don't place our faith in the writings and interpretations of Christians who have gone before us. This is not true. We don't place faith in the Fathers. We place our faith in Christ, solely in Christ. In Him, through "His precious and magnificent promises" we receive the truth. One of these promises is that of the Church. Our faith requires belief in the Church, because we are baptized into Christ and in doing so become members of His Body. Christ is One, His Body is One, therefore the Church is One.

Let me make this clear - the chain is:

Christ -> Church founded on Apostles and Prophets -> Apostolic Tradition -> Holy Scripture

Or, working backwards, we can say we can trust Holy Scripture because it aligns with Apostolic Tradition, which comes from the Apostles, on whom the Church was founded by Christ.

Protestants have something like:

Christ -> ??? -> The Bible

Working backwards, they say we believe in the Bible because of Christ. But there's a huge swath of history in the ??? because the Bible as they know it today didn't exist for over a thousand years. They say that's ok because reasons.

Protestants have no such bedrock chain of authority. They're left with a book as the ultimate authoritative entity. Unfortunately, when asked by what authority this book exists they must necessarily stand mute; they have no ability to go "before the book" even though we know temporally this time was a necessity. They have no ability to go "outside the book" to understand why the canon is what it is, why books were included or rejected, and on what grounds. They're left with a book and no one to explain it to them. And so there are so many errors that creep in. And since a book can't tell you if you're right or wrong in reading it, they end up being subject to the interpretation of those "fallible men" they are so afraid of in the first place (even if those fallible men are themselves).

Quote:

---

Protestants see great value, but they also see the fallibility of man, of the Catholic Church throughout history, and place inerrancy solely on the Word of God.

---

The Catholic (universal) Church is not fallible. It is the Body of Christ, in submission to Christ, spotless and undefiled, and He is the Head. The Scripture says this much. If you believe the scripture is inerrant, you must believe the Church to be unconquerable.

As for submitting to the authority of God, you can't have it both ways. You said you submit to scripture - is the scripture God? The scripture says to submit to spiritual authorities and to each other as to Christ - are spiritual authorities God?

You must have a hierarchy of authority to understand who to submit to. This is scriptural. Lacking this, protestants unintentionally enter into a problem of very great hubris, as you quote says - I submit to no man, only God Himself! Thus making yourself the only spiritual authority. Isn't that what you were saying you didn't do?

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

I suspect I understand protestantism far better than you do Orthodoxy, as I grew up in a baptist church and attended protestant churches for years. But protestantism is such a broad category as to be meaningless for any detailed discussion.


///

As for being in submission to scripture, this attitude is both unscriptural and historically, provably unfruitful.

Not once in scripture are we told told to be in submission to scripture. Not a single time. We are told to submit to our spiritual leaders' authority, to our elders, to each other as to Christ, to the Lord, to every human authority. We are not in submission to a book. We are not baptized into a book. Christ did not write a book or give us a book. He gave us a Church, He founded a Church.

We are baptized into Christ, and as individuals this baptism gives us membership parts of the body of Christ, which is the Church. We submit to each other as to Christ, and to our leaders, and in this submission the Church submits to Christ. He is the leader of the Church, the only priest, teacher, and guide of the Church. Not a book.

In history we see that "congruent" interpretation is not a guard against error or heresy. No doubt Arius believed his interpretation of scripture was congruent, likewise Sabellius or Eunomius. But they were wrong. Protestantism's rejection of the safeguards of Apostolic Tradition opened them up to needlessly repeating the errors of history. This is an easily predicted outcome, and it has happened just so.

///

I have no idea what you're talking about with regard to controlling behavior, liberty, or fear. This is only about the authority of the Church to guard against heresy, as the scriptural litmus test of heresy is not scripture but Apostolic instruction, literally paradoseis which is translated as tradition.

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

He's talking about the problem of authority as in: who has it.

You are completely wrong about where we place our faith. Protestantism places its faith in scripture, their confession says so. But this is on the face a novel approach, because no such system could have been instituted by the Apostles. Therefore this is not the faith of the Apostles.

We don't place our faith in the writings and interpretations of Christians who have gone before us. This is not true. We don't place faith in the Fathers. We place our faith in Christ, solely in Christ. In Him, through "His precious and magnificent promises" we receive the truth. One of these promises is that of the Church. Our faith requires belief in the Church, because we are baptized into Christ and in doing so become members of His Body. Christ is One, His Body is One, therefore the Church is One.

Let me make this clear - the chain is:

Christ -> Church founded on Apostles and Prophets -> Apostolic Tradition -> Holy Scripture

Or, working backwards, we can say we can trust Holy Scripture because it aligns with Apostolic Tradition, which comes from the Apostles, on whom the Church was founded by Christ.

Protestants have something like:

Christ -> ??? -> The Bible

Working backwards, they say we believe in the Bible because of Christ. But there's a huge swath of history in the ??? because the Bible as they know it today didn't exist for over a thousand years. They say that's ok because reasons.

Protestants have no such bedrock chain of authority. They're left with a book as the ultimate authoritative entity. Unfortunately, when asked by what authority this book exists they must necessarily stand mute; they have no ability to go "before the book" even though we know temporally this time was a necessity. They have no ability to go "outside the book" to understand why the canon is what it is, why books were included or rejected, and on what grounds. They're left with a book and no one to explain it to them. And so there are so many errors that creep in. And since a book can't tell you if you're right or wrong in reading it, they end up being subject to the interpretation of those "fallible men" they are so afraid of in the first place (even if those fallible men are themselves).

Quote:

---

Protestants see great value, but they also see the fallibility of man, of the Catholic Church throughout history, and place inerrancy solely on the Word of God.

---

The Catholic (universal) Church is not fallible. It is the Body of Christ, in submission to Christ, spotless and undefiled, and He is the Head. The Scripture says this much. If you believe the scripture is inerrant, you must believe the Church to be unconquerable.

As for submitting to the authority of God, you can't have it both ways. You said you submit to scripture - is the scripture God? The scripture says to submit to spiritual authorities and to each other as to Christ - are spiritual authorities God?

You must have a hierarchy of authority to understand who to submit to. This is scriptural. Lacking this, protestants unintentionally enter into a problem of very great hubris, as you quote says - I submit to no man, only God Himself! Thus making yourself the only spiritual authority. Isn't that what you were saying you didn't do?

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Obedience to the Church over Christ? You're better than that.

I misunderstand Protestantism? The one with thousands of schisms based on people interpreting scripture their own way? Right.

---

dermdoc said:

---

And imho, if you took the Pope out of the equation there would be a lot less disagreement.

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Yes, confessional / high church protestants don't really belong lumped in with the far end of the spectrum.

That being said, they all own all of it. Not even the Lutherans went east when they had the chance, showing that their personal theology was far more important than reform or union. And that is the true and continuing spirit of the reformation.

---

XUSCR said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

The Holy Spirit did not take a pen and write the books of the Bible. The Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the books that make up the Canon and assured that they would not contain error. The one, holy catholic and apostolic Church, again guided by and protected from error by the Holy Spirit, defined which books were fit to be in the Canon of the Bible.

The Gospels, which were all written by divinely inspired human beings AFTER the Church was founded, were written as liturgical documents to be read within and used for the liturgies of the Church then and now.

The same one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that defined heresies and gave us the creed that has ever since been a dogmatic, definitional statement of the bare minimum of what it means to be Christian, is the same Church that defined the Canon of the Bible which Sola Scriptura purports to be the sole source of credible authority for defining what is Christian.

To question the authority of the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church that gave us the creeds, defined heresies, and defined the Canon is to argue that the credibility of the Bible is up for debate as the inspired word of God.

---

Which "holy catholic and apostolic Church" are you claiming? Rome or Orthodox? Both make a similar claim, yet offer different "traditions." One of y'all is "right" and "wrong."

---

06, from the point of view of church history prior to the separation of east and west (ca the end of the first millenium) I am talking about the sole "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church." The west and those churches in communion with the west consider themselves the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church today, just as our separated brothers and sisters in the east do today. It is a tragedy and we all pray for reunion, but for purposes of this discussion, at the time the Nicene Creed was promulgated, there was only one such Church and it was truly catholic.

What is interesting and I would propose worth considering, is that despite being separated, the west and the east have practically identical views on the role of Sacred Tradtion and Sacred Scripture. That's because those views were formed as part of the real history of the Church, not a revolutionary idea that popped up 1500 years later. If I was Protestant, that would lead me to question the authenticity of my faith.

---

I hear Catholics say something to this effect frequently. Paraphrasing Kallistos Ware, the Orthodox would claim Catholics and Protestants are more closely aligned than the Orthodox and Catholics. Something to think about as well.

But I do agree that we should pray for unity. We are going to need it in this Post-Christian world.

---

I don't know how anyone can look at the western Catholic Church and its rituals and soteriology and think it more like Protestantism than Orthodoxy unless one just doesn't want to admit the commonality. To do otherwise strikes me as lazy at best and disingenuous at worst.

---

The statement I came comes from one of the pre-eminate writers on Orthodox (Metropolitan Kallistos Ware).

But honest question, what about your soteriology do you think fits with Orthodox or even Protestants (and by Protestants, I mean the original reformers, not the non-denims of today).

---

RC soteriology is practically the same as Orthodox soteriology. No sola fide or sola scriptura. Also, no once saved always saved. Christ's victory over sin and death is once and for all, but we are free to reject it at anytime before we die.

The biggest difference between western Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox is more in ecclesiology and specifically in the filioque. Otherwise, both churches have sacraments that are believed to be real means of imparting grace to the recipient. Both believe in the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, which is the source and summit of Catholicism and the Orthodox hold the Eucharist in similar regard.

None of that applies between the Protestant churches in any fashion.

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

The Holy Spirit did not take a pen and write the books of the Bible. The Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the books that make up the Canon and assured that they would not contain error. The one, holy catholic and apostolic Church, again guided by and protected from error by the Holy Spirit, defined which books were fit to be in the Canon of the Bible.

The Gospels, which were all written by divinely inspired human beings AFTER the Church was founded, were written as liturgical documents to be read within and used for the liturgies of the Church then and now.

The same one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that defined heresies and gave us the creed that has ever since been a dogmatic, definitional statement of the bare minimum of what it means to be Christian, is the same Church that defined the Canon of the Bible which Sola Scriptura purports to be the sole source of credible authority for defining what is Christian.

To question the authority of the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church that gave us the creeds, defined heresies, and defined the Canon is to argue that the credibility of the Bible is up for debate as the inspired word of God.

---

Which "holy catholic and apostolic Church" are you claiming? Rome or Orthodox? Both make a similar claim, yet offer different "traditions." One of y'all is "right" and "wrong."

---

06, from the point of view of church history prior to the separation of east and west (ca the end of the first millenium) I am talking about the sole "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church." The west and those churches in communion with the west consider themselves the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church today, just as our separated brothers and sisters in the east do today. It is a tragedy and we all pray for reunion, but for purposes of this discussion, at the time the Nicene Creed was promulgated, there was only one such Church and it was truly catholic.

What is interesting and I would propose worth considering, is that despite being separated, the west and the east have practically identical views on the role of Sacred Tradtion and Sacred Scripture. That's because those views were formed as part of the real history of the Church, not a revolutionary idea that popped up 1500 years later. If I was Protestant, that would lead me to question the authenticity of my faith.

---

I hear Catholics say something to this effect frequently. Paraphrasing Kallistos Ware, the Orthodox would claim Catholics and Protestants are more closely aligned than the Orthodox and Catholics. Something to think about as well.

But I do agree that we should pray for unity. We are going to need it in this Post-Christian world.

---

I don't know how anyone can look at the western Catholic Church and its rituals and soteriology and think it more like Protestantism than Orthodoxy unless one just doesn't want to admit the commonality. To do otherwise strikes me as lazy at best and disingenuous at worst.

---

The statement I came comes from one of the pre-eminate writers on Orthodox (Metropolitan Kallistos Ware).

But honest question, what about your soteriology do you think fits with Orthodox or even Protestants (and by Protestants, I mean the original reformers, not the non-denims of today).

---

RC soteriology is practically the same as Orthodox soteriology. No sola fide or sola scriptura. Also, no once saved always saved. Christ's victory over sin and death is once and for all, but we are free to reject it at anytime before we die.

The biggest difference between western Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox is more in ecclesiology and specifically in the filioque. Otherwise, both churches have sacraments that are believed to be real means of imparting grace to the recipient. Both believe in the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, which is the source and summit of Catholicism and the Orthodox hold the Eucharist in similar regard.

None of that applies between the Protestant churches in any fashion.

---

Again, on the surface RC make this claim a lot. In reality, there's very little that RC and Orthodox have in common. As you said, most notably the claim of 7 sacraments/mysteries is the closest that you get (and even then they are not in communion and there are differences).

But what you mention about Protestants (High Church) has little to do with soteriology and is really just throwing buzz words at the problem.

The Reformers view of soteriology is rather simple. We are saved by the Grace of God alone (Sola Gratia). This is why Lutherans are accused of being monergists when that's not really the case. Lutheran's had to fix the mistakes of the RC and had to make sure it was clear that Salvation is only because of God.

We can't pay our way to salvation, and we can't build enough "merits" to get to Heaven. "We fall short of the Glory of God" and if not for God would be in Hell where we deserve to be.

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

They tried. The patriarch told them where they erred. The argued, he corrected them and the third time he sent them away. They didn't want union, they wanted to be told they were right.

---

XUSCR said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

The Holy Spirit did not take a pen and write the books of the Bible. The Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the books that make up the Canon and assured that they would not contain error. The one, holy catholic and apostolic Church, again guided by and protected from error by the Holy Spirit, defined which books were fit to be in the Canon of the Bible.

The Gospels, which were all written by divinely inspired human beings AFTER the Church was founded, were written as liturgical documents to be read within and used for the liturgies of the Church then and now.

The same one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that defined heresies and gave us the creed that has ever since been a dogmatic, definitional statement of the bare minimum of what it means to be Christian, is the same Church that defined the Canon of the Bible which Sola Scriptura purports to be the sole source of credible authority for defining what is Christian.

To question the authority of the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church that gave us the creeds, defined heresies, and defined the Canon is to argue that the credibility of the Bible is up for debate as the inspired word of God.

---

Which "holy catholic and apostolic Church" are you claiming? Rome or Orthodox? Both make a similar claim, yet offer different "traditions." One of y'all is "right" and "wrong."

---

06, from the point of view of church history prior to the separation of east and west (ca the end of the first millenium) I am talking about the sole "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church." The west and those churches in communion with the west consider themselves the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church today, just as our separated brothers and sisters in the east do today. It is a tragedy and we all pray for reunion, but for purposes of this discussion, at the time the Nicene Creed was promulgated, there was only one such Church and it was truly catholic.

What is interesting and I would propose worth considering, is that despite being separated, the west and the east have practically identical views on the role of Sacred Tradtion and Sacred Scripture. That's because those views were formed as part of the real history of the Church, not a revolutionary idea that popped up 1500 years later. If I was Protestant, that would lead me to question the authenticity of my faith.

---

I hear Catholics say something to this effect frequently. Paraphrasing Kallistos Ware, the Orthodox would claim Catholics and Protestants are more closely aligned than the Orthodox and Catholics. Something to think about as well.

But I do agree that we should pray for unity. We are going to need it in this Post-Christian world.

---

I don't know how anyone can look at the western Catholic Church and its rituals and soteriology and think it more like Protestantism than Orthodoxy unless one just doesn't want to admit the commonality. To do otherwise strikes me as lazy at best and disingenuous at worst.

---

The statement I came comes from one of the pre-eminate writers on Orthodox (Metropolitan Kallistos Ware).

But honest question, what about your soteriology do you think fits with Orthodox or even Protestants (and by Protestants, I mean the original reformers, not the non-denims of today).

---

RC soteriology is practically the same as Orthodox soteriology. No sola fide or sola scriptura. Also, no once saved always saved. Christ's victory over sin and death is once and for all, but we are free to reject it at anytime before we die.

The biggest difference between western Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox is more in ecclesiology and specifically in the filioque. Otherwise, both churches have sacraments that are believed to be real means of imparting grace to the recipient. Both believe in the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, which is the source and summit of Catholicism and the Orthodox hold the Eucharist in similar regard.

None of that applies between the Protestant churches in any fashion.

---

Again, on the surface RC make this claim a lot. In reality, there's very little that RC and Orthodox have in common. As you said, most notably the claim of 7 sacraments/mysteries is the closest that you get (and even then they are not in communion and there are differences).

But what you mention about Protestants (High Church) has little to do with soteriology and is really just throwing buzz words at the problem.

The Reformers view of soteriology is rather simple. We are saved by the Grace of God alone (Sola Gratia). This is why Lutherans are accused of being monergists when that's not really the case. Lutheran's had to fix the mistakes of the RC and had to make sure it was clear that Salvation is only because of God.

We can't pay our way to salvation, and we can't build enough "merits" to get to Heaven. "We fall short of the Glory of God" and if not for God would be in Hell where we deserve to be.

---

Sorry bud. I simply cannot agree with your assessment of the RC/Orthodox views of salvation.

I won't bother with trying to debate the rest. What's the point.

---

Quote:

---

And if any controversy in regard to Scripture shall have been raised, let them not interpret it otherwise than as the luminaries and doctors of the Church have expounded it. And in these let them glory rather than in composing things out of their own heads lest, through their lack of skill, they may depart from what is fitting.

---

Quote:

---

Since we have agreed on almost all of the main subjects, it is not necessary for you to interpret and understand some of the passages of the Scripture in any other way than that in which the luminaries of the Church and Ecumenical Teachers have interpreted. They themselves interpreted Scripture according to Christ our God, who is truth itself. And we, that is, our Church, keep these truths and uphold them. For nothing else is the cause of dissension than this and only this, which when you correct it, we will be, with the grace of God, in agreement; and we will become one in the Faith, the glory of God. For having researched diligently some of the passages of Holy Scripture, which you referred to in your first and second letters which you sent to us, we saw clearly that you had misinterpreted them, perhaps in following your new teachers. For this reason we again entreat you to understand the passages as the Ecumenical Teachers of the Church have interpreted them and which interpretations the seven ecumenical synods and the other regional ones have ratified. For as we have already said, it is not necessary to rise up and remove everlasting boundaries which the Fathers have established, so that we will not violate the definition which was mentioned at the beginning of the Sixth Synod and be subject to penalties.

---

Quote:

---

Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

...

But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in various times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation.

---

Quote:

---

The favors of God so far exceed human hope and expectation, that often they are not believed. For God has bestowed upon us such things as the mind of man never looked for, never thought of. It is for this reason that the Apostles spend much discourse in securing a belief of the gifts that are granted us of God. For as men, upon receiving some great good, ask themselves if it is not a dream, as not believing it; so it is with respect to the gifts of God. What then was it that was thought incredible? That those who were enemies, and sinners, neither justified by the law, nor by works, should immediately through faith alone be advanced to the highest favor. Upon this head accordingly Paul has discoursed at length in his Epistle to the Romans, and here again at length. This is a faithful saying, he says, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.

As the Jews were chiefly attracted by this, he persuades them not to give heed to the law, since they could not attain salvation by it without faith. Against this he contends; for it seemed to them incredible, that a man who had mis-spent all his former life in vain and wicked actions, should afterwards be saved by his faith alone....

---

Quote:

---

"And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus." This is added, lest hearing that he obtained mercy, we should understand by it only, that being deserving of punishment, as a persecutor and blasphemer, nevertheless he was not punished. But mercy was not confined to this, that punishment was not inflicted; many other great favors are implied by it. For not only has God released us from the impending punishment, but He has made us righteous too, and sons, and brethren, and heirs, and joint-heirs. Therefore it is he says, that grace was exceeding abundant. For the gifts bestowed were beyond mercy, since they are not such as would come of mercy only, but of affection and excessive love. Having thus enlarged upon the love of God which, not content with showing mercy to a blasphemer and persecutor, conferred upon him other blessings in abundance, he has guarded against that error of the unbelievers which takes away free will, by adding, with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. Thus much only, he says, did we contribute. We have believed that He is able to save us.

Let us then love God through Christ. What means through Christ? That it is He, and not the Law, who has enabled us to do this. Observe what blessings we owe to Christ, and what to the Law. And he says not merely that grace has abounded, but abounded exceedingly, in bringing at once to the adoption those who deserved infinite punishment.

And observe again that in is used for through. For not only faith is necessary, but love. Since there are many still who believe that Christ is God, who yet love Him not, nor act like those who love Him. For how is it when they prefer everything to Him, money, nativity, fate, augury, divinations, omens? When we live in defiance of Him, pray, where is our love?

---

Quote:

---

Now honor and glory are not mere words; and since He has honored us not by words only, but by what He has done for us, so let us honor Him by works and deeds. Yet this honor touches us, while that reaches not Him, for He needs not the honor that comes from us, we do need that which is from Him.

In honoring Him, therefore, we do honor to ourselves. He who opens his eyes to gaze on the light of the sun, receives delight himself, as he admires the beauty of the star, but does no favor to that luminary, nor increases its splendor, for it continues what it was; much more is this true with respect to God. He who admires and honors God does so to his own salvation, and highest benefit; and how? Because he follows after virtue, and is honored by Him. "For them that honor Me, He says, I will honor." (1 Samuel 4:30)

---

Quote:

---

Is it then enough, says one, to believe in the Son, that one may have eternal life? By no means. And hear Christ Himself declaring this, and saying, "Not every one that says unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 7:21); and the blasphemy against the Spirit is enough of itself to cast a man into hell. But why speak I of a portion of doctrine? Though a man believe rightly on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, yet if he lead not a right life, his faith will avail nothing towards his salvation. Therefore when He says, "This is life eternal, that they may know You the only true God" (John 17:3), let us not suppose that the (knowledge) spoken of is sufficient for our salvation; we need besides this a most exact life and conversation. Since though he has said here, He that believes in the Son has eternal life, and in the same place something even stronger, (for he weaves his discourse not of blessings only, but of their contraries also, speaking thus: He that believes not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him: yet not even from this do we assert that faith alone is sufficient to salvation.

---

Quote:

---

"Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience." He shows that not faith only, but a virtuous life also is required, and the consciousness to ourselves of nothing evil. Since the holy of holies does not receive with full assurance those who are not thus disposed. For they are holy, and the holy of holies; but here no profane person enters. They were sprinkled as to the body, we as to the conscience, so that we may even now be sprinkled over with virtue itself. And having our body washed with pure water. Here he speaks of the Washing, which no longer cleanses the bodies, but the soul.

---

Quote:

---

But wherefore has He chosen us? That we should be holy and without a blemish before Him. That you may not then, when you hear that He has chosen us, imagine that faith alone is sufficient, he proceeds to add life and conduct. To this end, says he, has He chosen us, and on this condition, that we should be holy and without blemish. And so formerly he chose the Jews. On what terms? This nation, says he, has He chosen from the rest of the nations. (Deuteronomy 14:2) Now if men in their choices choose what is best, much more does God. And indeed the fact of their being chosen is at once a token of the loving kindness of God, and of their moral goodness. For by all means would he have chosen those who were approved. He has Himself rendered us holy, but then we must continue holy. A holy man is he who is a partaker of faith; a blameless man is he who leads an irreproachable life. It is not however simply holiness and irreproachableness that He requires, but that we should appear such before Him. For there are holy and blameless characters, who yet are esteemed as such only by men, those who are like whited sepulchres, and like such as wear sheep's clothing. It is not such, however, He requires, but such as the Prophet speaks of; And according to the cleanness of my hands. (Psalm 18:24) What cleanness? That which is so in His eyesight. He requires that holiness on which the eye of God may look.

---

Quote:

---

After this, that we may not be confident in the gospel merely preached, nor think that faith only suffices us for salvation, He utters also another, an awful parable. Which then is this? That of the net.

"For the kingdom of Heaven is like a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind; which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away."

And wherein does this differ from the parable of the tares? For there too the one are saved, the other perish; but there, for choosing of wicked doctrines; and those before this again, for not giving heed to His sayings, but these for wickedness of life; who are the most wretched of all, having attained to His knowledge, and being caught, but not even so capable of being saved.

---

Quote:

---

Therefore Christ also says, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.

He knew this indeed even before, but that He might leave them no pretext of a shameless sort of contradiction, although He knew it, to them first He both came and sent, both stopping their mouths, and teaching us to fulfill all our parts, though no one should derive any profit.

Since then they were not worthy, go ye, says He, into the highways, and as many as you shall find, bid; both the common sort, and the outcasts. For because He had said in every way, The harlots and publicans shall inherit heaven; and, The first shall be last, and the last first; He shows that justly do these things come to pass; which more than anything stung the Jews, and goaded them far more grievously than their overthrow, to see those from the Gentiles brought into their privileges, and into far greater than theirs.

Then in order that not even these should put confidence in their faith alone, He discourses unto them also concerning the judgment to be passed upon wicked actions; to them that have not yet believed, of coming unto Him by faith, and to them that have believed, of care with respect to their life. For the garment is life and practice.

And yet the calling was of grace; wherefore then does He take a strict account? Because although to be called and to be cleansed was of grace, yet, when called and clothed in clean garments, to continue keeping them so, this is of the diligence of them that are called.

---