Author’s Note
I always wanted to write one of the ‘Dummy’ books because I figure if anyone could understand a dummy it was me.
Preface
Something miraculous happens to a human being when they receive Baptism. They are changed and have become a ‘new man’ though nobody can see it; they look unchanged.
A human person is ’substantively’ both body and spirit; though we do not see the spirit soul with our material vision. But we believe and have it on good authority that we do have a spirit soul and that Christ, the Holy Spirit and even the Father (the Triune God cannot be separated . . . where one is, the other 2 are there as well*) will reside in that spirit soul once it has been opened to Him and reborn in the waters of Baptism.
Thereafter, the ‘accidents’ or material components of the person do not ‘appear’ to have changed but (since the substance of a human person comprises both body and spirit) the soul is now inhabited by God; its substance, transubstantiated to be a new spirit in the Baptized human person.
Chapter 1.
Transubstantiation is just a fancy way of saying that what makes bread, bread or wine, wine is changed into a new substance: and that substance is the Glorified Jesus in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Now just like the human person who has been saved (take Bosco for instance**) looks the same as he did when he was unsaved, the ‘accidents’ have not changed. We call them accidents because they are secondary to what makes bread, bread and wine, wine. Just like the body of Bosco is irrelevant (and may have been an accident) to the new person that Bosco has become since he became saved.
Now was that so hard?
Chapter 2.
Consubstantiation would be like receiving a second spirit soul at baptism that dwells in harmony with our first spirit soul; which might make it a bit too crowded.
Transfinalization would be like saying that nothing happens now but the final result will be something really good; trust me.
Transignification would be like saying we think somehow something has happened but we aren’t sure how to describe it . . . but it must signify something (I think); also like Bosco.
And thus ends another lesson in my Theology for Dummies series. Next week, we might release a new work called: Holy Orders for Dummies.
I hope you have enjoyed the book and you can now visit my site and get my address so that you can mail me $1.00 US for this explanation.
*see my book: The Trinity for Dummies
**please! Actually he underwent transdiscombobulation which is much different and requires a bus ride and cute girl.
All Along the Watchtower 
‘Something miraculous happens to a human being when they receive Baptism. They are changed and have become a ‘new man’’
Does that include women? What if the woman doesn’t want to become a man? Is Baptism a bit like a sex change operation – only cheaper?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Duly noted Jock. My new, inclusive language version shall be coming out in the fall. Don’t miss it!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave, how are you? We haven’t spoken in ages lol. How’s your son?
LikeLiked by 1 person
He’s doing great. I am as well, how about you? Good to see you here again . . . we’ve missed your great contributions here. Hope you stick around.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you. Life, my friend, and grad school stuff got in the way. After April, when I finish this proseminar, my contributions here should pick up much like last summer.
Well, I’m glad to hear all is well. I’m praying for you guys.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks, we need it. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for this.
I think where I, like many non RCs would disagree is in making a dogma about an explanation of something we actually can’t explain. I am with St John of Damascus here, of course from another tradition:
“But if thou seekest after the manner how this is, let it suffice thee to be told that it is by the Holy Ghost; in like manner as, by the same Holy Ghost, the Lord formed flesh to himself, and in himself, from the Mother of God; nor know I aught more than this, that the Word of God is true, powerful, and almighty, but its manner of operation unsearchable.” (J. Damasc. Theol. lib. iv. cap. 13, § 7.)
I do not disagree with you in so far as I know I receive the body and the blood of my Lord, but how it changes and when it changes, why these are mysteries, and in making one explanation a dogma, I am afraid your Church made a stumbling block, which is where, and only where, I disagree.
As I understand (oh, yes, that one!) it became a defined dogma at Trent? Why the need to define a mystery?
Super explanation by the way 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 3 people
What she said, which is, of course, part of the reason I like, “in, under and around”.
God’s mysteries are just that, mysteries.
But an excellent explanation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The reason the Church found it necessary was that many other explanations: consubstantiation, transfinalization or transignification were floating about. We knew that none of them created a REAL change that makes Christ FULLY present. So it was defined. It is the only explanation that answered the other speculations around (by various other names) that truly FIT the Divine Mystery.
LikeLiked by 4 people
It’s a good one. except that, by definition, Divine Mysteries are mysteries.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As I told Jess, the Catholic Church has never stated it to be otherwise. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then we are, in essence, in agreement.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes that transubstantiation is a mystery as is Salvific Grace and a host of other things. We are saying that all which we can know is described within the term transubstantiation: that the entire substance of bread and wine is changed into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Glorified Christ . . . without admixture.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because it didn’t define a mystery. It told you all that it could about the mystery. Just like Baptism or Grace. We can and should understand that which we can understand. As to the how this happens or what it looks like, the Church has never tried to do this. It’s amazing how folks love to pick apart what the Church readily already teaches; that transubstantiation is a mystery. We know . . . . 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 2 people
In saying that the substance remains x but the element change to y, it does, I am afraid, define what happens, and worse than that it claims that if you don’t agree with that explanation you are anathema.
A mystery is what the Orthodox say – they do not use Aristolelian terms about elements and substance or attempt to say what happens.
LikeLike
You keep saying it backwards, my friend. It is the change of the ‘entire’ substance into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Did you read what BXVI had to say? It is simply that. By faith this is what we have come to believe.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I did, but my point remains. To be clear, no one here is claiming we do not meet the Lord’s body and blood at the Eucharistic feast – it is the attempt to explain it in terms of Aristotelian physics and the insistence that if you disagree you are anathema, which is being objected to.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Would you rather have seen the other theological and philosphical explanations win out? They did not fit the belief of an actual change of substance into Christ. We believe it, though we cannot see it. Just like Baptism. And yes we are required to believe that it is more than simply symbolic change or a temporary God-bread that is not substantially changed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, I would much rather we had stayed as the OC has stayed, with the view it is a deep mystery incapable of any explanation. This Western obsession with explaining everything in terms of science – even if it is the science of the Middle Ages – is the origin of modernism. If you ask why it has never appeared in the OC, a large part of the explanation lies in its refusal to allow men to define what the Spirit alone could explain. It is most unfortunate that Rome then decided to anathematise everyone who failed to agree. Another stumbling block to unity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We haven’t explained it. NML says he has no problem with it. You seem to get all upset when the Church tries to settle disputes with a simple definitive belief that we must hold. If She has the power to bind and loose then we are bound to accept that. If not . . . believe what your will. It is either true or false and either the Holy Spirit is guiding us or not. What do you think of the Eucharistic Miracles in the Church? If you don’t believe them that is find as Catholic’s are not bound to either. But if you do believe in them then it seems that heaven itself is ratifying all that the Church has taught.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What I have a problem with is defining it as x changing and y not changing and then grandly declaring if you don’t accept it you are anathamata. The Church has never said this – your part of the Church, claiming to be the whole, has said it – that’s not the same thing as the Church accepting it. The Orthodox don’t accept it – they don’t, on the whole comment, but they don’t agree with it either, or with the anathemata.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They have that right . . . they after all have half of a magisterium left; modern day apostolic bishops. But sadly until we can bring all our bishops together and both sides decide that the arbiter in all disagreements woud be the Pope making an ex-cathedra statement then we will remain separated. I would love them to come in. But rest assured, we still couldn’t budge from defined doctrine: it is etched in stone, on earth and in heaven. Believe it or not. If not . . . you are where you want to be. If so . . . you need to decide if you will throw away your personal objections and show obedience to the authorities on such matters that Christ has given us.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As do we. I know a biased Roman commission said our bishops don’t, but for us to take that seriously would be like taking Hillary Clinton’s views on the republican party seriously.
I have no personal objections to Rome. I find its claims to be the only church a bit sad, but then in practice, neither your Popes nor your bishops behave as though they really believe what they say, so in practice, as so often, your church has a theory – and a practice which seems to have little to do with it.
I enjoy my Catholic friends, I am sorry so many of them get upset with their own Pope, but then having accepted quite a high version of the Papal claims under two Popes with whole I think most of you agreed, this Pope has reminded you all that there are other versions of the powers of the Pope – which can only be a good thing.
LikeLike
Fr. Longenecker can say it better as can Fr. Sullins in the last link.
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-catholics-must-understand-about-anglicanism
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2015/01/church-of-england-whats-that.html
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/anglican-church-burning-the-last-bridges-to-unity
Click to access Sullins%20-%20Reflections%20on%20Absolute%20Ordination.pdf
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is a bit like taking a former Republican turned Democrat as an authority on Republican politics – he’ll know something, but read it through the wrong hermeneutic.
It’s very poor and crude stuff I’m afraid.
Had he read any real scholarship on the Oxford Movement, he would not write so. As Avis, Nockles and Chadwick pointed out some time ago, the Church of England always contained within it catholic and reformed elements. It is in the nature of things that at different times and in different contexts, men should have emphasised one part of this inheritance; that a man who can read and write should characterise this as [pretending to be Catholic’ is sad, and not a little pathetic. There was no ‘pretence’, except [erhaps for Newman, who pretended to be able to read the 39 Articles in an RC sense and was censured by the relevant authorities for it, and took himself off to Rome.
It was not pretence that enabled them to make a good job of it – there he is right, they did. It was the Spirit working with the Church – I wonder of the good Father was ‘pretending’ when he was an Anglican? As I don’t indulge in that sort of thing, I shall leave it to him to impute motives, and simply note that we see the fruits of the Spirit where we see them. I see no pretence.
To write, as he does, about women’s ordination being the moment my church said:
“In doing so they were really saying, “We are a Protestant church. All that Catholic stuff was all form and no content. It was just dressing up. We were kidding with you. We didn’t really mean it.”
is him at his worse, vulgar knockabout stuff for those who can’t be bothered to actually think. Always easier to impute motives. I notice you didn’t like him when he seemed to impute motives to those of your persuasion, but note you seem to admire him when he turns the same crude way of thinking onto my church. I prefer not to like him either time.
He is, intellectually and historically, crude, and your church is welcome to him.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t assume that they haven’t. One has to take into account his audience and the type of media. I haven’t read any of his books but that would be a better media to pursue these.
I would expect, however, that a man of the genius of Cardinal Newman might have had some very good reasons to jump into the fire, known as the RCC.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s rather vulgar low humour of a type which says more about the man who uses it than he ought to be comfortable exposing.
I did read one of his books – a poor imitation of the Screwtape letters – Lewis’ estate should have sued.
Newman had his reasons, as did Manning, who always though Newman untrustworthy and hysterical and who attempted to block him by feeding Rome stories about him. ex-Anglicans seem to me to be not wholly trustworthy sometimes. It was Manning Rome made a Cardinal, Manning Rome made head of the English and Welsh Church – and Manning who fed it dirt about Newman. Nice fellow.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But of course you find them untrustworthy . . . just as I find a failed priest or a ex-Catholic suspect. That is because we believe and trust what we believe and trust. That is why my entire arguement was not about particulars in historical contexts etc. It matters little to the idea that Christ suffered and died for His Church and gave it certain guarantees. He provided for His Church. I see nowhere that this has been revoked or has expired. And if it did then where is the proof (heavenly, public revelation) where authority was removed from one and handed to many? Its a simple argument for me. All I have to do is believe in the promises of Christ.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again, I think you are talking as an ex Protestant, as you are bound to. I have never denied Christ died for his church or that there was any expiry. I really don’t think you understand Anglicanism at all, which is why you may be misunderstanding me.
Christ handed authority to bind and loose to the Apostles and their successors. Quite what autheority inhered to Peter alone has always been a matter fpr discussion. The reason your Church along has problems here is that your Church alone agreed that this power included universal jurisdiction. To those of us who have followed the model of the early Church when no bishop had such jurisdiction, it is not a problem.
My bishops are successors of the Apostles, and in obeying them I obey the Apostles. I was born into a Church which has successors of the Apostles, and the fact that a foreign church with its own agenda takes another view is interesting only to those who think its opinions are binding.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jess it was you who told me in the combox the other day that the gifts to Peter died with him. That was the point of that quick article . . . I didn’t start thinking of this for no reason. It was a reply to your supposition that such gifts were only meant for the person and their times . . . not forever.
As to any discussions on what power of authority the keys actually were has been answered by the church which seems to be right place to answer it. I accept the answer of the Church.
I really don’t know enough of Anglicanism to reply about your apostolicity claims. The history is so full of mahem and confusion that I would have doubts that it can be proven to have held up turing times of turmoil. If there is an historical record of validly ordained bishops being the only ones to ever pass on this ordination to their peers then the only thing missing is the obedience to the Holy See that binds us together. Then the ordinariate seems to be the proper road.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did I, I honestly don’t remember that. What I believe is that Peter had a primacy of honour, and that is die to his successors, and was happily given – until they began to ratchet up what that meant.
We have good recrod, and we have no doubts, and that your own church takes a different view suprised no one – it is its arrogance in trying to tell us it is right which is objectionable. It’s not like it did a minute’s work in an English archive.
The Ordinariate, naturally, accepts Rome’s view, which is why they are with Rome. I respect that – and the fact they don’t feel any need to imitate Fr Longenecker.
People move as they feel they must, and I respect that. What I don’t respect is those who have moved saying things about their former church which are inaccurate and spiteful – I see in that nothing of Christ.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I didn’t see spite in those articles but if they offend I’m sure it was probably not intended.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think saying people were ‘pretending to be catholics’ is pretty low stuff, and I can’t see the need to call an archbishop a ‘great bumbler’ – each to their own I guess, but the piece does him no favours.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, he’s ruffled my feathers more than once as well . . . and I still like the man. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’ve a nice man 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you. And as you are a nice lady. 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
I fear I am a sore trial – but it is part of feeling so much better – I am able to read and think again – and it’s been so long since I could do that 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am so happy that you are up to it again dear friend. 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Me too – for the longest time it has seemed as though half my brain wasn’t working 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
In other words, you were feeling like me. 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bless you – I wish I could write as well and as logically as you do – I’m more of a stream of (semi-)consciousness girl 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
No it is just that I have a way of thinking that is rather peculiar. I had physics instructor who had fits with me for my questions. He couldn’t fail me for my test grades were rather sterling but he did write me up for asking him question he couldn’t answer and he felt embarrassed by them. I think he though I was trying to do this for personal reasons. The truth was, I really asked teachers hard questions because I was bound to drift off in a day dream trying to figure them out if I couldn’t get a good answer. Its just a personality trait I have. I’ve never met a man (or woman) that I haven’t exasperated. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I fear I have something of that trait with many of you here. I am conscious of a certain oddity 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
We all have our own peculiarities I think. At the heart of it all I think most here mean well. 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m sure of that 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
John the Baptist baptized in water. It didn’t make them born again. If it was just that simple, Jesus wouldn’t have said that most people are on the wrong path. I was changed and I wasn’t dunked in water.
Come one come all…stand in line to be changed….no cutting in line please. Turn off cell phones.
If you noticed, in the NT, people would come to the Lord….and THEN go and do the ceremony of water. Everyone does some type of baptism if they hang around a church. But they aren’t born again.
Keep looking and trying. Its better than not trying.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Well you, of course, are a mystery that defies all explanations.
LikeLike
On second thought, perhaps you were transdiscombobulated.
LikeLike
Yes – baptism comes after belief; Peter says ‘believe and be baptised’ in that order. Paul (where the ‘new man’ comes from) indicates that we ‘died to sin’ through belief and says ‘we were therefore buried with him through baptism’.
I always thought that burial came after death – but perhaps I’m wrong about this.
LikeLike
You must learn this, Grasshopper: Very truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. Perhaps a whole fruit salad.
LikeLike
ah ha …. so when Paul says buried he means buried alive so that we can become a fruit salad?
LikeLike
I think we’re on to something here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Baptism is not about what we do, it is about what God does in Christ through the Holy Spirit: baptism washes away original sin and other sins up to that point and, most importantly, it unites us to the Church and prepares the way for salvation. However, baptism alone does not save us much like belief and baptism together is not sufficient to save us. All things save us, the whole of reality works toward our salvation.
Also, this idea that nothing happens in baptism is another modernist invention where everything in Scripture and the Church is just a thing or mere obedience, textual meaning is nothig more than absolute literalism, nothing is more than what is seen. But, as St Paul reminds us, in baptism those waters become these waters, that day becomes this day, that moment becomes this moment, our Lord’s death becomes our death, our Lord’s resurrection becomes our resurrection. This is baptism, a mystical reality.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The first statement ‘Baptism is not about what we do; it is about what God does ….’ is correct. When I come to believe, this is all the work of God.
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.
I have been saved, by the grace of God, while I was dead in my sins. I was Baptised after I came to believe, as an acknowledgement that God had saved me, because we are commanded to be baptised when we come to believe.
As for the rest of it – I have read the whole of the Holy writ and haven’t seen anything of this business that you write about in it. This all looks like medieval superstition to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But the Church sees it in Scripture in much the same it sees the Trinity in Scripture.
I think this need to be said firmly: Scripture derives its authority from the Church not the other way round. Let’s look at why I think that.
1) Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would speak through Him and the Apostles. The New Testament recorded some of what they said, and some of what they said was not recorded. Yet St Paul tells us to hold fast to both what was taught and what was written. Again, both what was taught and what was written. But how can we hold fast to things that aren’t written in Scripture and that we weren’t around to hear? Tradition, that’s how. This is why apostolic succession is so important. We have to trust that the Holy Spirit guided the Apostles in selecting successors and in planting churches and that what was going on then is what is going on now.
2) Our Lord told us that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all truth. That’s the promise of Christ. Now, heresy can arise and even the holiest of saints can be wrong, which is why the Church holds councils in response to heresy in order to evaluate and prayerfully determine what the truth is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And the history of the Church bears witness to that conciliarity. But the Church cannot err, according to Christ.
3) The Scriptures were gathered together by the Church, that is, the Church decided which books or epistles were Scripture. Most scholars believe that the books of the NT were written between 50 AD and 100 AD. But the NT didn’t just fall like manna from heaven. The Church put it together and, although there was solid agreement on certain books amongst most Christians for many decades, it wasn’t until the Synod of Carthage in 397 that we get the canon of Scripture as we know it today. And how did the Church know which books and letters were heresy and which were not? By doctrines that were passed down from the Apostles through tradition.
So, if we trust that the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit in putting together the biblical canon, then why not trust that the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit on other matters as well?
Simply, Holy Scripture is not set up over and above the Church, it lives within the Church just like any other aspect of Tradition. The Scriptures derive their authority from the Church because the Church put Scripture together and the Church taught us how to interpret it, eg. the Trinity, creatio ex nihilo, the Incarnation, etc. It is only within the Church that the Scriptures have any authority whatsoever much like the rules of chess only have authority within the game of chess.
Oh, and, yes, it is medieval, but I take that as a compliment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I see it as the other way round. Of course, I have read theological books and listened to sermons. But Scripture is always the ‘bouncer at the door’ as it were. Someone from ‘The Church’ comes up with a new idea that I hadn’t thought of; I check it up against Scripture. If it makes Scriptural sense I accept it; otherwise I reject it. Not the other way round.
In the case of Baptism, it is always ‘believe and be baptised’. When you get people trying to justify infant baptism, they always make a mess of it; for example citing the Philippian gaoler they omit the crucial verse ‘he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household.’ i.e. the whole household had come to believe.
LikeLike
Baptism does not give you a divine pass that will get you into heaven. It merely begins the process of salvation. Of course, salvation requires a personal response, but that alone does not save you just like baptism and belief alone does not save you.
1) But Scripture doesn’t interpret itself. So, you don’t actually check it up against Scripture, you check it up against a particular exegesis.
2) Baptism, including infant baptism, makes Scriptural sense, otherwise these things would not have been the beliefs and practices of the Church for 1500 years.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes – here, by ‘particular exegesis’ you mean clear and plain language; clear and plain statements.
I’m not so keen when intellectuals tell us that the clear and plain language is wrong because we’re not being intellectual enough.
LikeLike
But it is clear and plain language?
For example, Acts 11:13–14: “Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.”
Acts 16:15: “And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, ‘If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.’ So she persuaded us.”
Acts 16:33: “And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.”
Acts 18:8: “Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.”
1 Corinthians 1:16: “Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas.”
Now, could these households not have included children? Sure, but what’s the plain and clear meaning of the text?
But, of course, there is more to reading Scripture, there is more to textual meaning, than absolute literalism. If surface and literalistic readings exhausted all the meaning of Scripture, then we wouldn’t have the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, because they are not there in the text in that way, except in a rather fragmentary and inchoate way.
And, I just want to note, that to read a text literally, at least within patristic exegesis, is merely to follow its meaning through to the end. That’s how Augustine can write a literal commentary on Genesis, but it look nothing like what we think of as a literal interpretation of Scripture.
Perhaps, I should also note that one of the most difficult problems in biblical hermeneutics is exactly what constitutes a plain sense reading of Scripture.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d already dealt with that – the passage Acts 16 has a connecting particle ‘because’ and it says that he and his household were baptised because because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household. So the whole household had come to believe and because of this they were baptised. The connecting particle ‘because’ must mean something – why tell us that the whole household had come to believe?
So there could have been children there – but these children had come to believe and because of this they were baptised.
That is how I understand the word ‘because’.
LikeLike
Where’s the because? Anyway, salvation requires a personal response, but that alone is not sufficient for salvation. That’s what I’ve been saying. So, even when infants are baptized it does not save them, it merely prepares them for salvation, which also requires a personal response at some point. Again, though, personal response and baptism together are not sufficient for salvation by themselves. The whole of creation works towards our salvation and the whole of our lives bears it out.
Agreed: if children were present, then they were baptized. If babies were present, then they were baptized.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Point 2 – not necessarily. After all, how long has the Muslim religion lasted? The fact that a bunch of intellectuals thought it was a good idea and were able to sell it means absolutely nothing.
LikeLike
Surely, the practices of, say, the Sunnis are Quranic, though, right? Or let me rephrase that: the practices of the Sunnis make Quranic sense, correct? In much the same way the practices of the Church make Scriptural sense. I doubt very much that any practice in any religion could survive very long if it didn’t make sense based on that religion’s sacred text. That was my point.
LikeLike
Also, I think another problem here is that you seem to think that salvation is a one-time event rather than a process. The Orthodox view is one of deification, a striving for communion with God. Having orthodox beliefs is not enough, you must live an orthodox life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes – I see ‘salvation’ itself as a one-time event, as when Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus. From that point onwards, he was a willing servant; he was saved.
It was another 14 years before God called him to full time service and the life of a travelling apostle. He wasn’t any less saved before he started this ministry.
I see the whole of our lives as the development, the training ground as it were, making us fit for life in the heavenly kingdom.
I suppose that’s why I don’t see any need for the RCC idea of Purgatory; the role that they ascribe to Purgatory (fixing people who are already ‘in’) is precisely what I see going on in this life.
LikeLike
“He that endureth to the end shall be saved” (Matthew 10:22), “To us who are being saved” (1 Corinthians 1:18), “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (Matthew 16:24), “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12), “…Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:20), etc.
And I’ll also just note that your understanding of salvation as by faith only is a 16th century notion that was not endorsed by the Apostles, the Greek Fathers or the Latin Fathers. It is not how primitive Christianity thought about salvation. Salvation is a process of theosis, not a one off event.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Belief accredited as righteousness goes back to Abraham – so it’s a bit earlier than the 16th century.
All the points you raise can, and have been, answered in a reasonable manner. For example, if you’re interested in intellectual theologians, Tom Torrance answered the 16th century point by demonstrating that the Nicene creed was truly Evangelical in nature and that those who constructed it were Evangelical Christians. I found his arguments reasonably compelling.
Also – in response to the Matthew 10v22, 1 Corinthians 1v18, we have the Holy Spirit, which is the ‘deposit guaranteeing’ that which is to come; i.e. our ultimate salvation is assured.
I don’t intend to argue the point, simply to indicate briefly that all the points you raise have been considered deeply by many people and there are serious arguments supporting my view.
The idea that our salvation is guaranteed is utterly wonderful and too wonderful for many fine Christians to accept. You don’t have to accept it. After all, the tax collector of Luke 18v13 was so overwhelmed by his sin that he did not know he was saved, even though he was.
It does hamper your witness, though, if you don’t accept it. I know that I am saved; I have this inward assurance and nobody will be able to tell me that I am mistaken about this, or that this is wrong. That problem is solved for me.
I’m in fear and trembling before God all the time – and am always in a state of surprise and disbelief when I discover that the next event in my life actually goes reasonably well and isn’t all part of the rigorous trial and testing that the Lord has in store for me.
LikeLike
But I don’t need assurances about my salvation. I have assurances about God’s love and mercy. I am not a Christian so I can get to heaven. I am Christian for good intellectual reasons having to do with existence, consciousness, transcendent values, the intelligibility of the world, higher forms of causality, moral obligation, etc. But the primary reason I am a Christian is a lived reality: a) because I can’t make sense of reality apart from Easter and the Trinity, b) and because I want to know, more fully, the God who loves me and that I love. I really don’t think about heaven at all.
As for Torrance, are you talking about his book The Trinitarian Faith? Cuz that’s a great book, but I didn’t find that it demonstrated “that the Nicene creed was truly Evangelical in nature and that those who constructed it were Evangelical Christians.” Torrance’s views on the Trinity are basically Eastern Orthodox.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Torrance’s views on the Trinity are basically Christian.
What sort of assurances do you have about God’s love and mercy? Do you have assurances that they apply to you? Do you have the assurance that you won’t see the eternal fire? Because without this assurance, I don’t see that his love and mercy do you much good.
By the way – Torrance was a Barthian (and translated a lot of Barth’s stuff into English). I remember the time that a bunch of theology students from the New College (town centre, on The Mound) discovered that there were T-shirts on sale in the Kings’s Buildings students union (science campus two miles away from the town centre) with ‘I (heart) KB’ on them. I heard that the next day a bunch of them attended TT’s lecture in systematic theology wearing ‘I (heart) KB’ T-shirts. In their context, the ‘KB’ stood for ‘Karl Barth’.
Torrance was also a bit of a Holy Roller and was known to frequent the main Pentecostalist book shop – he seemed to enjoy the sort of stuff that Rob might like.
I didn’t read much of him and didn’t know him – these are simply stories I heard from the divinity students at New College at the time.
LikeLike
“Thomas Torrance knew Greek Patristics well and in his personal contacts with the present author he clearly indicated that in his perception of Christianity he was an orthodox with a capital “O.””
Alexei V. Nesteruk, “Universe, Incarnation, and Humanity: Thomas Torrance, Modern Cosmology, and Beyond,” Participatio Journal vol. 4 (2013): 214.
Also, Torrance was, as Wiki notes, “instrumental in the development of the historic agreement between the Reformed and Eastern Orthodox Churches on the doctrine of the Trinity…”
As for my assurances, I have all of Tradition from the liturgy to Holy Scripture to the doctrines of the Church to theology to just everyday, ordinary piety. So, yes, from creatio ex nihilo to Christ to John’s “God is love,” I have assurances of God’s love and mercy, but I dare not presume on God’s grace, as St. Anthony the Great said “all will be saved, only I will perish.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the comments about T. Torrance. They don’t surprise me and are consistent with what I already know; they are interesting nonetheless.
The ‘I dare not presume on God’s grace’ sounds a bit sanctimonious.You must at least be quietly confident that you’re ‘in’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I suppose I do, but I try to take the attitude of St Anthony on this point as often as I can. It keeps me grounded. Reminds me that I’m a sinner in need of God’s mercy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Jock, I am not challenging what you said, just in need of clarification. My experience is that many people have a powerful conversion experience and an encounter with God that changes their lives, but not everyone is in agreement that this conversion is a guarantee, by definition, of salvation. Also, conversion experiences lead different people to different denominations and churches in which they are convicted of the truth as taught in that particular denomination or church. I see this all the time and accept that this is part of God’s mysterious plan.
Here is my question. If you have an inner conviction that you are saved and that this salvation cannot be lost, what is the purpose of the rigorous trial and testing that the Lord has in store for you? I know I am probably overlooking a simple explanation but this struck me in what you wrote above. Again, I am not challenging you, I merely seek understanding.
LikeLiked by 2 people
My understanding is that we need this trial and tribulation to make us fit for the kingdom of heaven. More than that I cannot say, because we don’t know what goes on in the kingdom of heaven (except that it is supposed to be heavenly bliss), but we have to be refined before we get there, the ‘rough edges’ smoothed off, the ‘old man’ well and truly crucified and the ‘new man’ ready for active service when we get there.
That’s my understanding, for what it’s worth – and it’s my understanding as to why God not only allows His faithful to suffer in this life, but why He ordains it (as in Job – where God expressly permitted the devil to inflict suffering on Job. God allowed the devil to inflict suffering on Job in exactly the same way as the judge allows the executioner to chop off the head of the criminal – God was the author of the suffering).
LikeLike
Thank you for a quick response. Now my question is what if a person fails the Lord’s tests in this life and dies before repenting of that failing? He/she is still saved?
LikeLiked by 2 people
That is (of course) a matter for the Lord, but it is one that should bother us enormously. Just as Moses interceded on behalf of the Israelites when God pronounced His judgement and said that he would destroy them, so should we all pray earnestly for our fellow sinners. Prayer is effective; the Lord does change His mind as a result of our prayers.
I almost take the Barthian ‘double-predestination’ view (very loosely – Christ was predestined to salvation and so all the world was predestined to salvation ‘in Him’), but although beautiful, seems at odds with much of Holy Scripture.
LikeLike
Thank you very much, Jock.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good brother Jock, these religious think god deals out salvation a piece at a time. Kinda saved. A little saved. They better pull their head out of their religion and invite Jesus into their life. Its no crime being unsaved and having crazy ideas. Just don’t die expecting your religion to save you. Mary to pray for you at the hr of you death. Sorry bub, its each man for himself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Baptism is not an isolated event. It must be understood within the context of Pascha. Christian faith is Easter faith. All things must be understood in the light of Easter.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes – again true. I remember the minister of the church I attended had special Easter services, during which he explained that there shouldn’t be special Easter services because every service should be an Easter service.
LikeLike
Bosco, dear brother, I seem to remember you telling us that you were never baptised (you know, the full works with water, not just hanging around in the church looking like a clown). Doesn’t that mean you are unsaved?
LikeLike
Eccles – I don’t speak for Bosco, but what is your view of the Salvation Army? As I see it, they did an awful lot of good, bringing people to faith.
They don’t do baptism. They don’t have a bread and wine ceremony of any shape or form either.
LikeLike
Yes, they do a lot of good (but then do some Muslms and Buddhists). But the Bible seems to ask for Baptism and “do this in remembrance of me” Communion. This is where the doctrine of purgatory comes to our rescue: most of us need a bit more fine-tuning before being saved.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eccles – we’re agreed on the fact that Holy Scripture says, ‘this do’. We agree that this is clear and plain; we agree that they’re wrong to go against it.
OK – so they make an error on this point. But what I see (perhaps not the ‘modern’ version, but the version that my grandfather saw in the 20’s, 30’s, 40’s and 50’s) really does proclaim Christ. They called on people to repent and put their trust in Christ and people did this. They didn’t dot the i’s and cross the t’s, but it seems to me that they were right on the button for the essentials of the faith.
As far as purgatory goes – can you think of any characteristics of Purgatory that our present life here on earth does not have? I seems to me that the Catholic view of Purgatory isn’t much different from our current experience here and now.
LikeLike
Im not even going to give eccles an answer.
LikeLike
You don’t need to, my dear bruvver.,
LikeLike
“Transdiscombobulation.” Now there’s a theological term I can understand (in addition to giving me a chuckle of delight).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks everyone for the prayers! I just arrived back home, I had to travel 2 hours away from my home, since the government, you know, shut down Catholic Charities adoption.
On this new post, Dave explains it marvelously. In the Catholic mass, the priest exclaims during the particular part of Mass, “The mysteries of faith.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
For This is the Chalice of My Blood, of the new and everlasting covenant; the mystery of faith; which shall be shed for you and for the many unto the forgiveness of sins.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave, you write:
That transubstantiation is a mystery as is Salvific Grace and a host of other things. We are saying that all which we can know is described within the term transubstantiation: that the entire substance of bread and wine is changed into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Glorified Christ . . . without admixture.
That is not saying it is a mystery, it is saying that this is what happens, that the elements are changed but the substance isn’t. That, to me and many, is a definition too far. We do not know, neither did the early church try to define, what happened to the bread and wine. It was enough for us all, once, just to know he is there and to hesitate to say anything more. He is there, I know whom it is I receive – I have no interest in defining what happens to the ekements or substance. It is the deepest of sll mysteries, before which we kneel in awe.
If any church claims it knows what happens to the elements and the substance, that is daring of it; to declare that claim to be dogma and anathematise those who say it is a mystery beyind definition seems unkind and divisive, alas.
All I know is whom I receive – in that presence let all mortal flesh keep silent, and kneel in awed contemplation of so great a wonder.
LikeLiked by 2 people
First off; if by elements you mean the accidents which our eyes see as bread and wine . . . it is the elements that remain the same. It is the substance which changes just as we know that we are transformed in Christ though we cannot see it or feel it with physical sense. That is all transubstantiation means . . . but it does reject any idea that there is only a change in ‘meaning’ or ‘significance’ or that the bread remains and Christ is existing in the bread. He would exist in a soul for that is a spirit soul which is a proper realm for Christ. If the substance is not changed then there is some admixture of substance which is also not proper to exclusive provenance of Christ. He said (taking the bread), THIS IS MY BODY . . . though it sure looked a bunch like bread. I believe Christ and I believe the Holy Spirit would not allow the Church to declare any dogma which is not correct. Otherwise there is no truth to be found anywhere. Either the mediate authority of the Church continues or the Church died when the first apostles died.
LikeLiked by 2 people
But that is precisely the problem. The doctrine is attempting to explain what happens, and doing so in terms of Aristotelian physics – that is, I fear, not saying it is a mystery, it is saying ex changes but y does not, and worse, it is saying if you don’t agree, you are anathema. This seems entirely unnecessary. The OC line, which is it a mystery we do not need to try to explain, seems more respectful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It doesn’t explain anymore than Baptism explains that we are given the Holy Spirit and Sanctifying Grace. They are mysteries to be sure. But this we believe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It does. It says x changes and y does not. I would be very interested in any patristic quotation which says that. I cannot find one, and the one Phillip offered from Theodore had been deliberately doctored to include the word elements – which I find in no genuine patristic quotation.
LikeLike
You know by science that y does not. You know by faith that x does. So what is wrong with that? Did you read BXVI?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I did. He is not talking in terms of Aristotelian physics. We know by faith He is there, we do not know by faith that Aristotelian definitions apply.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We know what the authoritative teaching of the Church teaches. You accept that it cannot err on such matters or you do not. Your choice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, I know what the RCC claims, and whilst it is welcome to its belief it is the whole Church, I am not in the slightest bound to believe what it claims, including that claim.
For example, it could not accept that at the Anglican Eucharist I receive Christ. I know I do. It is welcome to its opinion, but I know that on that it is simply wrong – I know who I meet by infallible signs.
LikeLike
What are your infallible signs Jess? The Church does not say that all who are in the pews are the whole Church but we know those who are not in the pews are disobedient to all that the Church teaches. For our part anyone Baptized is connected to the Church whether they believe that or not.
LikeLiked by 2 people
At the moments I receive Him, an ineffable peace that the world cannot give, a calmness in which the world is lost to me. I sometimes feel if I could just die at that moment then I should see him face to face.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The unsaved have all these weird ideas about what being saved is. Knowing this….understanding that. Getting wet. At least you are thinking about it.
You have no control over it. You cant take a class, or get wet, or hold your hand in some pose, or eat a wafer. You cant read what some dead saint said and meditate on it and get saved. I can tell you what you cant do to get saved, but its up to each person to ask Jesus to know him. If he wills, he will come and sup with you. He does will, but ye ask amiss, therfor ye receive not. Each person has different ideas on salvation. Images in their head. They expect a scene out of some image they meditate on to come along, or some other religious madness.
I can give testimony to how I was born again. I was tricked into it. At that time, I felt I had to do god a favor. So I joined the choir. OK, im good. Then I went to a love and music festival…to see if I could get me some lovin. Ya know what I mean, baby cakes. The music was this Jesus music. OK, I can deal with that. Food was adequate. Now, wheres the beef? Some girl took me aside and read me the riot act. I thought I scored. But she asked me if I believe Jesus is real and wants to knowme. Well, my prot upbringing told me yes, no prob….I believe it. So what? If I was brought up in the other big religion, I would have said….im already good to go and only costumed holymen can dish god out, thanks anyway. But I said I believe it. Which I did. So she made me say the sinners prayer and let me go. I got the hell out of there and headed home befor it got too late. I took the bus because I was too young to drive.I was glad to be out of that Jesus stuff. What a rip off. Free love my eye. I remember the exact second I felt different. It was more a mental thing. I saw the world as vain. The billboards, the stores, the cigarette adds. Still on the bus I saw all the merchandising that used to be just everyday life, now it made me sick. I was thinking……this isn’t life….its….its….its nothing. I thought I was having a LSD flashback that ive been told about, so I shrugged it off. I said to myself….Bosco, get a grip ol boy. So, I made it home, I don’t remember how I got home. I went upstairs where my parents were watching TV, and I started flowing forth with scriptures that I never read or knew. I never read the bible, outside of church sunday school for kiddies. It scared my parents, and they wouldn’t let me take the family bible down to my room. I didn’t know I was born again. I didn’t know what happened. The next morning early, befor my hypocrite parents got up, I went into the library and got the bible out. Took it to my room and opend it and it came to life. OT, I knew this god of Moses. I know him. NT, Jesus, I know this guy. Everything made perfect sense. I could laugh at what he did. I cant describe how I knew, but I knew him and could see him doing things he did. I didn’t question my new found friend. I just went with it. I knew that I was friends with the creator of heaven and earth and I didn’t fear anybody or anything. I didn’t know I was born again because I never heard that phrase. I could ask him for things and get them. He let me know this was real.It was maybe yrs later that I figured I was born again. I was led to groups of other people whom this had happened to. Rich, poor, smart and dumb. We all sat there knowing that we all know the same person, and that we were saved from the fire. Each had a different scenario, but it was basically the same story. They were changed all of a sudden. Young, old, none of this mattered. We were all just in awe in what had happened to us. And we were all one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for sharing this Bosco. It now makes sense to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One cannot know what its like being born again until they are born again. Until then they philosophize and paint pictures and throw water on themselves and eat crackers. They read this book and that book and this dead saint and that dead saint.Remember good brother Ben Carter? He used to say that no one knows if they are going to heaven till after they die. This must be catholic thinking or dogma, cause he was as catholic as the Pope. That’s a sad existence, not being sure
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have a vague memory of Ben Carter – he was the fascist who thought that Salazar’s government was the best government that Portugal ever had, right?
His religion certainly didn’t do him any good.
LikeLike
Poor Ben. I also think he was homosexual.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hmmm – that would make some kind of sense. I didn’t understand why he wanted to advertise every aspect of his private life over ‘The Telegraph’ blog pages. He certainly made a mess of his relationships with women – so if he was hetero then he didn’t make a very good job of it.
If he was as you suggest, then he was repressed. It would have been better for him to admit it to himself – and then be honest about it.This may have been the root of his problems.
LikeLike