Did Jesus Pay It All?

Apex · Jul 12, 2017

Apex said:
We first must define the "what" that needs to get paid. Then we need to ask "how" does this "what" get paid. Only after that can we clearly see if Jesus paid anything and if that was enough to cover the cost.

jimmyjimmy said:
He bore the covenant curse.

The "what" = the penalty for breaking God's law.

The end-result penalty for this is the second death (Revelation 20:14). This is a spiritual death that occurs after man's physical death (the first death). It is contrasted with receiving the crown of life and a life lived eternally curse-free in God's presence (Revelation 22:3-5).

The "how" = fulfilling the above penalty.

This is impossible for a sinful human to fulfill. This is why this second death is everlasting.

Think of this as two consecutive life sentences without parole. The inmate has no possible prospects of fulfilling his sentence - even after he dies!

So, with that in context, did Jesus do anything that would completely pay this cost?

Yes, as both totally God and man, Jesus obeyed the law of God perfectly fulfilling all righteousness. Then he suffered and died on a Roman cross, bearing the penalty for the elect's sin upon himself. While he could not take upon man's guilt since he personally had not sinned, he could and did assume the ultimate penalty of sin: the second death. Thus, he made complete atonement for sin.

Is this atonement transferable?

Yes, the Bible speaks of it as a gracious gift that can be received by faith. However, what or how this happens does not negate the payment Jesus already paid 100% in full.

redleghunter · Jul 12, 2017

PeaceB said:
Sure, but most of the so called "synergists" (by which I take it you mean every Christian on the Earth who does not hold to 5 point Calvinism) do not teach a works-based salvation.

You do not appear to have any real basis for asserting that we are semi-Pelagian.

Why do you keep adding to what I wrote. Unless mind reading is your gift, I made no such statement.

PeaceB · Jul 12, 2017

redleghunter said:
You made the comment about forcing clothes on. That's not in the text. So defend your statement.

Here is what I wrote:

So is your position that Adam and Eve were forced to wear these same clothes for the rest of their lives? Or did they retain the ability to remove the clothes (washing them or throwing them away for new tunics that they made themselves, for example)?

I asked two questions. I did not make any statements. What statement is it that you would like me to defend? If you could please quote the specific statement that you want me to defend, I will attempt to do it.

I know it may seem like I am being difficult, but I honestly have no idea what it is that you would like me to do.

PeaceB · Jul 12, 2017

redleghunter said:
Why do you keep adding to what I wrote. Unless mind reading is your gift, I made no such statement.

OK. I stand corrected. I am sorry.

You wrote that synergism is the same as the semi-Pelagian heresy condemned at the Council of Orange.

In your view, what is synergism, and who holds to synergism? I had thought that you referred to all Christians/Christian theology that does not hold to 5 point Calvinism, but apparently I was mistaken. What and who do you have in mind?

In other words, who are the Semi-Pelagians?

redleghunter · Jul 12, 2017

PeaceB said:
Here is what I wrote:

So is your position that Adam and Eve were forced to wear these same clothes for the rest of their lives? Or did they retain the ability to remove the clothes (washing them or throwing them away for new tunics that they made themselves, for example)?

I asked two questions. I did not make any statements. What statement is it that you would like me to defend? If you could please quote the specific statement that you want me to defend, I will attempt to do it.

I know it may seem like I am being difficult, but I honestly have no idea what it is that you would like me to do.

Your line of questioning departs the context of the text quoted.

This is usual issue when exegesis is answered by hypothetical eisegesis.

You have to establish your theory that (1) there was forcing. (2) they could take off the tunics.

Your line of questioning tends to want me to address something outside the text while providing no text in your defense. Meaning asking me to speculate on your hypothetical.

Do you have anything in defense of your position Adam and Eve took off the tunics God made and God clothed them with?

redleghunter · Jul 12, 2017

PeaceB said:
You wrote that synergism is the same as the semi-Pelagian heresy condemned at the Council of Orange.

Semi-Pelagianism is a weaker form of Pelagianism (a heresy derived from Pelagius who lived in the 5th century A.D. and was a teacher in Rome). Semi-Pelagianism (advocated by Cassian at Marseilles, 5th Century) did not deny original sin and its effects upon the human soul and will; but, it taught that God and man cooperate to achieve man's salvation. This cooperation is not by human effort as in keeping the law but rather in the ability of a person to make a free will choice. The semi-Pelagian teaches that man can make the first move toward God by seeking God out of his own free will, and that man can cooperate with God's grace even to the keeping of his faith through human effort. This would mean that God responds to the initial effort of person and that God's grace is not absolutely necessary to maintain faith.

Synergism is the teaching that we cooperate with God in our efforts of salvation. This is opposed to monergism which is the teaching that God is the sole agent involved in salvation.

Frankly no difference. Orange has spoken.

PeaceB said:
In your view, what is synergism, and who holds to synergism? I had thought that you referred to all Christians/Christian theology that does not hold to 5 point Calvinism, but apparently I was mistaken. What and who do you have in mind?

I was pointing out the various views and what Orange condemned.

redleghunter · Jul 12, 2017

PeaceB said:
In other words, who are the Semi-Pelagians?

Now that is a great question.

Answer: those who hold to "Jesus Christ plus something."

Galatians is a wonderful source for how Paul handled the situation there where some Galatians preached the Gospel plus something.

jimmyjimmy · Jul 12, 2017

redleghunter said:
Now that is a great question.

Answer: those who hold to "Jesus Christ plus something."

Galatians is a wonderful source for how Paul handled the situation there where some Galatians preached the Gospel plus something.

The Galatian's error just won't die.

PeaceB · Jul 12, 2017

redleghunter said:
Semi-Pelagianism is a weaker form of Pelagianism (a heresy derived from Pelagius who lived in the 5th century A.D. and was a teacher in Rome). Semi-Pelagianism (advocated by Cassian at Marseilles, 5th Century) did not deny original sin and its effects upon the human soul and will; but, it taught that God and man cooperate to achieve man's salvation. This cooperation is not by human effort as in keeping the law but rather in the ability of a person to make a free will choice. The semi-Pelagian teaches that man can make the first move toward God by seeking God out of his own free will, and that man can cooperate with God's grace even to the keeping of his faith through human effort. This would mean that God responds to the initial effort of person and that God's grace is not absolutely necessary to maintain faith.

Synergism is the teaching that we cooperate with God in our efforts of salvation. This is opposed to monergism which is the teaching that God is the sole agent involved in salvation.

Frankly no difference. Orange has spoken.

I was pointing out the various views and what Orange condemned.

I see that you got your definitions from Matt Slick. Very well.

I can understand how one might conclude that Semi-Pelagianism and Synergism are the same, but there is a difference between the two. The definitions that you set forth above explain the difference:

"The semi-Pelagian teaches that man can make the first move toward God by seeking God out of his own free will".

So-called "Synergism" does not teach that man can make the first move toward God by seeking God out of his own free will.

PeaceB · Jul 12, 2017

redleghunter said:
Your line of questioning departs the context of the text quoted.

This is usual issue when exegesis is answered by hypothetical eisegesis.

You have to establish your theory that (1) there was forcing. (2) they could take off the tunics.

Your line of questioning tends to want me to address something outside the text while providing no text in your defense. Meaning asking me to speculate on your hypothetical.

Do you have anything in defense of your position Adam and Eve took off the tunics God made and God clothed them with?

The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

Well, I certainly cannot prove that that they could take off the tunics. There is nothing in the text that explicitly states that, admittedly. But I think it is more reasonable than not to believe that they removed the tunics, for at least two reasons: 1) the tunics are made out of skin, and given the fact that Adam was cursed to work by the sweat of his brow for the rest of his life (some 930 years), one would think that Adam would be inclined to take off the skin tunic at some point, either to wash the skin tunic itself, or simply to bathe his own body; 2) In verse 22 and 23 you see that God banished Adam from the Garden of Eden so that Adam would not be able to eat from the tree of life. That implies the ability of Adam to make a choice to take from the tree of life to eat, had God decided to leave him in the Garden of Eden. It is reasonable to think that if Adam has the ability to make a choice to eat from the tree of life, that he would also have the ability to make a choice to take bath, as God has graciously granted to most men throughout the history of the world.

redleghunter · Jul 12, 2017

PeaceB said:
I see that you got your definitions from Matt Slick. Very well.

I can understand how one might conclude that Semi-Pelagianism and Synergism are the same, but there is a difference between the two. The definitions that you set forth above explain the difference:

"The semi-Pelagian teaches that man can make the first move toward God by seeking God out of his own free will".

So-called "Synergism" does not teach that man can make the first move toward God by seeking God out of his own free will.

I would welcome definitions of both from the CCC.

Pope Francis on what he coins neo-Pelagianism within the Roman Rite:

Most recently and authoritatively, in the apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (“The Joy of the Gospel”), Pope Francis warned that one form of “spiritual worldliness” is “the self-absorbed Promethean neo-Pelagianism of those who ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past.”

“nstead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying,” he said. “In neither case is one really concerned about Jesus Christ or others.”

In speaking about Pelagianism, Pope Francis is asking us important questions. Have we become absorbed in ourselves, rather than turning to the Lord and loving others? Have we adopted a “my way or the highway” mentality in matters of changeable Church discipline, believing that our preferences, rather than God’s grace, will solve the Church’s problems? Do we trust in ourselves to lead morally upright lives? Or do we, like St. Augustine, recall that without Christ we can do nothing, and seek his grace every day.
Pope: Ancient heresy plagues modern Church

What was incorrect with Slick's theological definition of semi pelagians?

The Catholic Encyclopedia seems to agree:

The second dispute, which broke out within the walls of the African monastery of Hadrumetum in 424, was not so easily settled. A monk named Florus, a friend of St. Augustine, had while on a journey sent to his fellow-monks a copy of the long epistle which Augustine had addressed in 418 to the Roman priest, afterwards Pope Sixtus III (Ep. cxciv in P.L., XXXIII, 874 sqq.). In this epistle all merit before the reception of grace was denied, faith represented as the most gratuitous gift of God, and absolute predestination to grace and glory defended. Aroused to great anger by this letter, "more than five monks" inflamed their companions to such an extent that the tumult seemed destined to overwhelm the good abbot, Valentinus. On his return, Florus was loaded with the most violent reproaches for sending such a present, and he and the majority, who were followers of Augustine, were accused of maintaining that free will was no longer of any account, that on the last day all would not be judged according to their works, and that monastic discipline and correction (correptio) were valueless. Informed of the outbreak of this unrest by two young monks, Cresconius and Felix, Augustine sent to the monastery in 426 or 427 the work, "De gratia et libero arbitrio" (P.L., XLIV, 881 sqq.), in which he maintains that the efficacy of Divine grace impairs neither the freedom of the human will nor the meritoriousness of good works, but that it is grace which causes the merits in us. The work exercised a calming influence on the heated spirits of Hadrumetum.

Apprised of the good effect of this book by Florus himself, Augustine dedicated to the abbot and his monks a second doctrinal writing, "De correptione et gratia" (P.L., XLIV, 915 sqq.), in which he explains in the clearest fashion his views upon grace. He informed the monks that correction is by no means superfluous, since it is the means by which God works. As for the freedom to sin, it is in reality not freedom, but slavery of the will. True freedom of the will is that effected by grace, since it makes the will free from the slavery of sin. Final perseverance is likewise a gift of grace, inasmuch as he to whom God has granted it will infallibly persevere. Thus, the number of those predestined to heaven from eternity is so determined and certain that "no one is added or subtracted".
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Semipelagianism

I stopped at the point where the Encyclopedia starts to tell the reader Augustine really did not mean what he wrote. He must have had issues with his interpreters as well.

redleghunter · Jul 12, 2017

PeaceB said:
So-called "Synergism" does not teach that man can make the first move toward God by seeking God out of his own free will.

Yes an important distinction, but still "Jesus plus something." See Galatians.

Paul rebuked Peter in Galatians for supporting those upholding "grace plus something."

redleghunter · Jul 12, 2017

PeaceB said:
The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

Well, I certainly cannot prove that that they could take off the tunics. There is nothing in the text that explicitly states that, admittedly. But I think it is more reasonable than not to believe that they removed the tunics, for at least two reasons: 1) the tunics are made out of skin, and given the fact that Adam was cursed to work by the sweat of his brow for the rest of his life (some 930 years), one would think that Adam would be inclined to take off the skin tunic at some point, either to wash the skin tunic itself, or simply to bathe his own body; 2) In verse 22 and 23 you see that God banished Adam from the Garden of Eden so that Adam would not be able to eat from the tree of life. That implies the ability of Adam to make a choice to take from the tree of life to eat, had God decided to leave him in the Garden of Eden. It is reasonable to think that if Adam has the ability to make a choice to eat from the tree of life, that he would also have the ability to make a choice to take bath, as God has graciously granted to most men throughout the history of the world.

You may have missed my point in my original post. Adam and Eve made their own garments to cover their nakedness. Yet they still hid from God.

This was their effort.

Contrast it with God providing them the skins. He clothed them.

sparow · Jul 13, 2017

jimmyjimmy said:
If you believe that Christ died for sinners in order to save them from the wrath of God, how much did He pay? Was it 100%, 99%, 51%, 50%, 0%?

Do you have to add anything to what He's done?

Do you first do your best, and then He makes of for what is lacking in your effort?

Does He simply provide an example of how to live a righteous life, and then you have to follow it in order to be saved?

I read many posts on CF, and it's clear to me that many people don't talk as if 100% is the correct answer.

Jesus didn't die for sinners, for sinners He wept; He died in place of or substitute for the repentant and overcomers according to the covenant. Jesus's first coming, everything including His death, is not more than 50% of God's covenant responsibilities and His second coming will not make up 100%, because the covenant does not end until all things are finished.

PeaceB · Jul 13, 2017

redleghunter said:
What was incorrect with Slick's theological definition of semi pelagians?

I am not sure if there is anything in the definition that is technically incorrect, but I think the definition is misleading in that it suggests that cooperation is the essence of Semi-Pelagianism (I assume that this is the reason why you came to the conclusion that synergism and Semi-Pelagianism are one and the same, but please correct me if I am wrong).

redleghunter said:
Yes an important distinction, but still "Jesus plus something." See Galatians.

Paul rebuked Peter in Galatians for supporting those upholding "grace plus something."

I do not think that there are many modern Christians at all who believe in "grace plus something." Exactly who or what theology do you have in mind?

Catholics, for example, believe in the necessity of baptism and subsequent cooperation, but neither of these deny grace If you look at the canons of the council of orange, you will note that the council concluded the same:

Historic Church Documents at Reformed.org

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

. . .

CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).

. . .

CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36).

. . .

According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him. We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God's kindness.

redleghunter said:
You may have missed my point in my original post. Adam and Eve made their own garments to cover their nakedness. Yet they still hid from God.

This was their effort.

Contrast it with God providing them the skins. He clothed them.

If your point is that God must move towards man first (God giving man clothes, for example) then I would agree. From what I recall, the point I was attempting to make was that God's grace can be rejected (refusing to wear the clothes, or taking off the clothes, following the same analogy).

lutherangerman · Jul 13, 2017

Christ specifically erected the Cross to save those who cannot save themselves. We're saved by the forgiveness he spoke there, having in mind all of us while he hung on that cross. When we reject Christ, our spirits do not do that, it's confusion, sin and satan influencing us. After death we go to God for judgment, and can put our faith in Christ there if we didn't do that in this life. But doing it now is better because then with Jesus Christ we can help better the world. There is punishment for evil, but it is more spiritual, we are brought to shame and regret if we did evil. And some people are so wicked (people like Hitler or Jack the Ripper), that they want to live in hell in order to entertain evil and perversion there. Yet they will not stay there forever and angels are watching and travelling hell together with saints in order to find lost souls and bring them to Heaven with them.

AnticipateHisComing · Jul 13, 2017

jimmyjimmy said:
If you believe that Christ died for sinners in order to save them from the wrath of God, how much did He pay? Was it 100%, 99%, 51%, 50%, 0%?

Do you have to add anything to what He's done?

Do you first do your best, and then He makes of for what is lacking in your effort?

Does He simply provide an example of how to live a righteous life, and then you have to follow it in order to be saved?

I read many posts on CF, and it's clear to me that many people don't talk as if 100% is the correct answer.

First, there are two types of forgiveness for the two types of "wrath". Jesus died to atone for the eternal consequences of sin. On judgement day those with faith will have their sins atoned for and will not receive any punishment for them.

But, why did Jesus teach us in the Lord's prayer, "Forgive us our sins"? That is because there are earthly consequences of sin. Further God may even judge us in this world as a result of our sin. This is called discipline in scripture, but at the time may feel like punishment.

Hebrews 12:5 And have you completely forgotten this word of encouragement that addresses you as a father addresses his son? It says, “My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, 6 because the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.”[a]
7 Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father? 8 If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all. 9 Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live! 10 They disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share in his holiness. 11 No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.

Scripture is clear that all that is required for atonement of our sins is faith. Romans 3:25. The problem many have is understanding the concept that faith is something ingrained in the heart and not just something stated by the mind. So many are mislead by the James text into thinking that salvation require works. God judges the heart, we can only see deeds that are the fruit of the heart. A godly heart will result in godly deeds to a wide range of fruition as the parable of the workers that only work one hour still will be saved teaches. Study other scripture to learn that in the next age all will not be equal but will be rewarded for what they have accomplished in this life. We should work hard in this life to obtain a better reward in heaven, but this in no way teaches that our entry to heaven is based on it. People often confuse these ideas.

sdowney717 · Jul 13, 2017

Winken said:
If?
I don't perceive it as being saved from God's wrath. He saved me by Grace through Faith.
His sacrifice was 100% of the total due.
There is zero zilch nada that I can add to what He has done.
I don't do my best. He does. He is my best.
He provides Romans 10:8-13. Open & shut, no strings.

Believers are definitely delivered from the wrath of God, which means our salvation and their destruction. The world is doomed to destruction. the coming destruction on the ungodly is certain, determined long ago. God has made all things for Himself, even the wicked for the day of evil. Proverbs 16:4

1 Thessalonians 1:9-10New King James Version (NKJV)
9 For they themselves declare concerning us what manner of entry we had to you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, 10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

bling · Jul 13, 2017

jimmyjimmy said:
God and the USA don't pay ransom to kidnappers.

I thought I addressed this already?
Jesus and others say a ransom was paid, so if God did not pay it who did (Jesus)?
The question is only who are the kidnappers? (God, satan, Christ or someone else and if someone else who?

redleghunter · Jul 13, 2017

PeaceB said:
I am not sure if there is anything in the definition that is technically incorrect, but I think the definition is misleading in that it suggests that cooperation is the essence of Semi-Pelagianism (I assume that this is the reason why you came to the conclusion that synergism and Semi-Pelagianism are one and the same, but please correct me if I am wrong).

I do not think that there are many modern Christians at all who believe in "grace plus something." Exactly who or what theology do you have in mind?

Catholics, for example, believe in the necessity of baptism and subsequent cooperation, but neither of these deny grace If you look at the canons of the council of orange, you will note that the council concluded the same:

Historic Church Documents at Reformed.org

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

. . .

CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).

. . .

CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36).

. . .

According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him. We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God's kindness.

If your point is that God must move towards man first (God giving man clothes, for example) then I would agree. From what I recall, the point I was attempting to make was that God's grace can be rejected (refusing to wear the clothes, or taking off the clothes, following the same analogy).

Thank you for bringing up Orange. A most important council/synod in a most important time.

PeaceB said:
If your point is that God must move towards man first (God giving man clothes, for example) then I would agree. From what I recall, the point I was attempting to make was that God's grace can be rejected (refusing to wear the clothes, or taking off the clothes, following the same analogy).

As I mentioned (see bolded in your statement above), the text I quoted did not address what Adam and Eve would do after getting their new threads from God. Consider the fact their first attempt was not accepted, when they did it on their own and by their own hands, why should we expect God to accept fig leaves later after having killed an innocent life to clothe them? Something to consider.

Orange goes on to address some of these issues above and beyond what you quoted. I will offer the full canons for consideration as well:

Council of Orange 529 AD

CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:20); and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" (Rom. 6:16); and, "For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2 Pet. 2:19).

CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12).

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).

CANON 9. Concerning the succor of God. It is a mark of divine favor when we are of a right purpose and keep our feet from hypocrisy and unrighteousness; for as often as we do good, God is at work in us and with us, in order that we may do so.

CANON 10. Concerning the succor of God. The succor of God is to be ever sought by the regenerate and converted also, so that they may be able to come to a successful end or persevere in good works.

CANON 11. Concerning the duty to pray. None would make any true prayer to the Lord had he not received from him the object of his prayer, as it is written, "Of thy own have we given thee" (1 Chron. 29:14).

CANON 12. Of what sort we are whom God loves. God loves us for what we shall be by his gift, and not by our own deserving.

CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36).

CANON 14. No mean wretch is freed from his sorrowful state, however great it may be, save the one who is anticipated by the mercy of God, as the Psalmist says, "Let thy compassion come speedily to meet us" (Ps. 79:8), and again, "My God in his steadfast love will meet me" (Ps. 59:10).

CANON 15. Adam was changed, but for the worse, through his own iniquity from what God made him. Through the grace of God the believer is changed, but for the better, from what his iniquity has done for him. The one, therefore, was the change brought about by the first sinner; the other, according to the Psalmist, is the change of the right hand of the Most High (Ps. 77:10).

CANON 16. No man shall be honored by his seeming attainment, as though it were not a gift, or suppose that he has received it because a missive from without stated it in writing or in speech. For the Apostle speaks thus, "For if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose" (Gal. 2:21); and "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men" (Eph. 4:8, quoting Ps. 68:18). It is from this source that any man has what he does; but whoever denies that he has it from this source either does not truly have it, or else "even what he has will be taken away" (Matt. 25:29).

CANON 17. Concerning Christian courage. The courage of the Gentiles is produced by simple greed, but the courage of Christians by the love of God which "has been poured into our hearts" not by freedom of will from our own side but "through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us" (Rom. 5:5).

CANON 18. That grace is not preceded by merit. Recompense is due to good works if they are performed; but grace, to which we have no claim, precedes them, to enable them to be done.

CANON 19. That a man can be saved only when God shows mercy. Human nature, even though it remained in that sound state in which it was created, could be no means save itself, without the assistance of the Creator; hence since man cannot safe- guard his salvation without the grace of God, which is a gift, how will he be able to restore what he has lost without the grace of God?

CANON 20. That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it.

CANON 21. Concerning nature and grace. As the Apostle most truly says to those who would be justified by the law and have fallen from grace, "If justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose" (Gal. 2:21), so it is most truly declared to those who imagine that grace, which faith in Christ advocates and lays hold of, is nature: "If justification were through nature, then Christ died to no purpose." Now there was indeed the law, but it did not justify, and there was indeed nature, but it did not justify. Not in vain did Christ therefore die, so that the law might be fulfilled by him who said, "I have come not to abolish them, but to fulfil them" (Matt. 5:17), and that the nature which had been destroyed by Adam might be restored by him who said that he had come "to seek and to save the lost" (Luke 19:10).

CANON 22. Concerning those things that belong to man. No man has anything of his own but untruth and sin. But if a man has any truth or righteousness, it from that fountain for which we must thirst in this desert, so that we may be refreshed from it as by drops of water and not faint on the way.

CANON 23. Concerning the will of God and of man. Men do their own will and not the will of God when they do what displeases him; but when they follow their own will and comply with the will of God, however willingly they do so, yet it is his will by which what they will is both prepared and instructed.

CANON 24. Concerning the branches of the vine. The branches on the vine do not give life to the vine, but receive life from it; thus the vine is related to its branches in such a way that it supplies them with what they need to live, and does not take this from them. Thus it is to the advantage of the disciples, not Christ, both to have Christ abiding in them and to abide in Christ. For if the vine is cut down another can shoot up from the live root; but one who is cut off from the vine cannot live without the root (John 15:5ff).

CANON 25. Concerning the love with which we love God. It is wholly a gift of God to love God. He who loves, even though he is not loved, allowed himself to be loved. We are loved, even when we displease him, so that we might have means to please him. For the Spirit, whom we love with the Father and the Son, has poured into our hearts the love of the Father and the Son (Rom. 5:5).

Did Jesus Pay It All?

Radical Centrist & Ethicist

Thank You Jesus!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Pardoned Rebel

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Newbie

Newbie

Regular Member

Thank You Jesus!

Similar threads