The clearest expression of these effects of grace is seen in a section that does even not contain the word “grace” . . . yet most clearly embodies it:
- “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” (Philippians 2:12-13)
“To will and to do of His good pleasure”. If nothing else this encompasses Bill’s definition completely. God works, which makes us want what He wants us to want, and then we work toward those objectives with the energy He gives us. What should we call the work of God within us “to will” and “to do”? Paul calls it “grace”:
- “But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.” (1 Corinthians 15:10)
We need the power of grace to serve God, particularly to do it the way He wants:
- “Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear” (Hebrews 12:28)
There is that idea of trembling, fear. The consequences of failing to work out our salvation are great. The more we realize this the more we will embrace and cling to the grace God gives us for that purpose.
Paul tells us to not try to work (Greek “ergo”) our way into God’s reward, that being supplied by grace:
- “Now to him that worketh (Greek “ergo”) is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.” (Romans 4:4)
Yet in Philippians 2 he tells us not only to work, but to work out our own salvation with focused effort. The Greek word for “work” in “work out your own salvation” is “katergazomai”, which is the word “ergo” on steroids . . . Work it out fully, make it happen. What we thus learn is that grace moves us to “work”, but to do so standing in His authority and enabling power instead of our own.
So let’s see how else “Desire to do what God wants us to” is found in grace. In Titus 2 grace is defined by Paul as something which teaches us to think like God thinks about sin, so that we instinctively turn from it:
- “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savoir Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” (Titus 2:11-14)
Grace appears to us all, and immediately begins to motivate us to hate sin, love righteousness, get excited about His soon return. Grace does all of that as it seeks to lead us to salvation and thereafter to redeem us from all the effects of sin. It turns us into zealots for godliness and good living. Strongs tells us that the Greek for “zealous” means “most eagerly desirous of, zealous for, a thing, to acquire a thing, (zealous of) to defend and uphold a thing, vehemently contending for a thing”. Whatever grace is, it gives us powerful longings we never had before.
Continue to Grace – What it is not or visit previous in series, Grace – Charis with Merit
Does God ever command us to do something and not give us the desire or power to do it? In other words, if I don’t sense a desire or enabling power along with what I perceive to be Gods voice telling me to do something, should I still try to do it? Or does that mean that it wasn’t God who spoke to me?
Or, does He ever tell us to do something and then the grace is delayed until a later time so we should wait until the time He enables us by grace to do it?
Without the desire to do it . . . we won’t. That goes without saying. The question is then moot, since we will never even care enough to ask it. Having a desire to do something but no ability to do so means it also isn’t going to happen. Grace is delayed until we humble ourselves before Him – and guaranteed once we bow the knee and fully accept His authority in our lives.
“If anyone says that mercy is divinely conferred upon us when, without God’s grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, keep watch, endeavor, request, seek, knock, but does not confess that it is through the infusion and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that we believe, will or are able to do these things, as is required; or if anyone subordinates the help of grace to humility or human obedience, and does not admit that it is the very gift of grace that makes us obedient and humble, one contradicts the apostle who says: “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7) and also “by the grace of God, I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10) From the Synod of Orange 529 AD.
First of all, apologies for the long delay. When there are few posts blogs such as this get inundated with Russian spam and viagra ads, making the few pearls harder to find.
I would like to ask you this question: What does it mean to be a “son of God”, designation for angels and Adam, as well as sinful humans (Genesis 6:4), and absolutely to all those that are saved? To get even more exciting, what does Psalm 82:6 mean when it call people “gods”, echoed by Jesus in John 10:34 to mean exactly that . . . “gods”? Clearly it doesn’t mean “to be powerful like God” . . . Or “to have knowledge like God”. What is a “god”? I am convinced that a “god” or “son of God” is one that has a distinct free will in the universe, the ability to create stuff apart from the laws that govern, determine the actions and decisions of all other life.
ANY perspective that seeks to make a robot, automaton out of a “son of God” is false. Invariably it leads to the soul crushing, mind bending philosophies of “fate” and “thought control”. When those WITH a free will come to believe they have no free will, invariably insanity results. Because it is a lie.
IF God says to “humble myself” because “God gives grace to the humble”, as He does at least three different places in the Bible, then there is within me, by God’s creation, the ability to do exactly that . . . Or choose not to. Why do we need to endlessly complicate this? As stated in the section, the reason that the pagan world invariably comes to these kinds of fatalistic notions is to, quite simply, gain the right to be irresponsible. The sinful heart of man is continuously seeking to exist free of personal responsibility. If God or the Fates or the gods or even space aliens with radio antennas made me do it, well then, it WASN’T MY FAULT! At the final judgement all such foolishness will melt away in an instant. All those gifted with that incredible ability to . . . Choose . . . Freely . . . Will be held fully accountable for each choice.
The Council of Orange (529 AD) condemned semi-Pelagianism and affirmed much of St. Augustine’s teaching about grace and free will. Semi-Pelagainism taught that man’s faith as a pure act of free will that is unassisted by previous grace. I wasn’t sure what your response would be to it. Actually I’m more surprised. Bill redefined God’s Grace as power and will. No matter how many scripture verses you have tried to quote here in your series and the different Greek words you have tried to point to, God’s Grace, by which we are saved by per St. Paul in Galatians is will unmerited favor or gift. (Charis or Chari). There is nothing in that word, even going back to the Greek that implies “power” or obedience. There is a balance here, we do have the free will or choice to reject God’s grace. The Calvinist teaching and idea of “irresistible” grace is just as wrong as Bill’s swing to semi-Pelagainism is. Bill’s definition in some ways looks to be a reaction to the TULIP schema. The either/or dichotomy found in too much in the evangelical world sets up these extremisms. Grace and free will is really a both/and, not an either/or. People resist and reject God’s grace all the time. To boil down our response to God’s grace as an obedience thing sets up God and our relationship to Him as a master/slave instead of a father/son based on love.
That is interesting. WHERE is the notion of “unmerited” in that word? To reiterate:
g5485. χάρις charis; from 5463; graciousness (as gratifying), of manner or act (abstract or concrete; literal, figurative or spiritual; especially the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life; including gratitude): — acceptable, benefit, favour, gift, grace(- ious), joy, liberality, pleasure, thank(-s, -worthy).
It has the idea of being favored, that is true, and a gifting, most certainly. Explain the “unmerited” part in these verses:
1 Peter 2:19-20. “For this is thankworthy[charis, “grace”], if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable[charis, “grace”] with God.
The “favor” or “grace” or “gift” coming from God is in direct response to allowing ourselves to suffer while doing well. That favor comes because of what He sees, not what He sees being a result of His favor.
The article labors to demonstrate how “grace” most definitely has the idea of power. Here is a most obvious example:
1 Corinthians 15:10. “But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.”
Or this:
2 Corinthians 12:9. “And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.”
That most clearly identifies grace as the strength in weakness, the “power of Christ”. Which the other verse says that all his “laboring” was actually grace “laboring”.
God’s grace is not given in response to obedience, but in response to humility, weakness. That is the beauty of it. THEN I have the desire and power to obey.
Here is the Strong’s Greek concordance link: https://biblehub.com/greek/5485.htm
Grace is favor, God extending Himself to us. I think you have a Strong’s concordance yourself. The verses you just quoted from Corinthians and I Peter talk about God’s grace giving us strength or ability in the face of challenges but that cannot be twisted to mean that Grace means power which is what Bill has done and you are trying to defend here. God’s favor can and does give us strength to be transformed, to face trials etc. What St. Paul and St. Peter were trying to say in these verses to to rely on God for strength, not on ourselves. This is twisting words around and isolation even the Greek word and meaning from the context.
I quoted the Strong’s reference in its entirety in the prior post. Grace can mean favor, it can also mean to be favored. Really the idea of a blessing, one given, or one acquired. Can definitely be a commodity. Example:
Grace Received 2 Corinthians 8:4
“Praying us with much intreaty that we would receive the gift[charis], and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints.”
Grace Given
7 “Therefore, as ye abound in every thing, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace[charis] also.”
That is favor, specifically . . . money. Very tangible:
Grace carried from one to another
19 “And not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace, which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready mind:”
“This grace” was this sack of money. It came from the Christians . . . and was carried by “a brother”. Pretty hard to hang on to “favor” as the sole definition, right?
I found the following helpful in exploring the derivation of the word and usage in extra-Biblical sources. You will quickly see that “charis” very much extended beyond “favor” to . . . a commodity being provided, a “grace”. Right in line with the usage I just pointed out. When you acquired a “grace”, you most definitely were favored, but the “favor” was not the “charis”, but the item communicated. And you will quickly see that “unmerited” was nowhere in view. Often these “graces” were given, tit for tat, as part of social interaction in that society. In fact, this article (David A. deSilva, professor of Greek at Ashland Seminary) is called, “Patronage and Reciprocity: Context of Grace in the New Testament” 84 pages, I have not yet read it all, looking forward to it.
Theologians with axes to grind find all kinds of amazing things in the common language of the day. Neither “favor” nor especially “unmerited” are an intrinsic part . . . of “charis”, grace. Truth be told . . . it is a kind of commodity of favor, gifts. And as this commodity in Scripture supplies the motivation and power to do things, like be an apostle, I think Bill’s explanation is the absolute best I have heard.
You are beginning to talk out of both sides of your mouth in trying to defend Bill’s definitions here. You, I and even Bill are not Greek scholars. I assume though Bill did have some Greek at Wheaton. But even your own quoting of Strong’s itself, grace = gift etc. is not grace = power which was Bill’s definition. Gift is just that, gift. It is given, not earned by us. It is initiated by God, not us which is why “unmerited” is used in connection with it. You are trying to wiggle out of it to defend Bill here. St. Paul writing that God told him that “His grace is sufficient” means that St Paul needed to rely on God for strength and ability for his trial. Greek meanings of words need to be put into the Greek meaning of all the other words that surround it. To single out one word and take it out of context is twisting scripture. But even by your own use, grace = charis = gift is not grace = power = obedience which was what Bill taught.
I have no problem with “gift” up until the point where someone tries to say that God does not give the gift in response to merit that He sees. See the difference? The government gives gifts to a lot of people – very few have “no strings attached”, care absolutely nothing for the character or situation of the recipient. Classic is “Amnesty”, given to illegal aliens at various points – Criminals and lazy people will not get it, the lazy ones because they could not be bothered to complete the paperwork and subject themselves to scrutiny.
Rely on Him for . . . what?! Good feelings, encouragement? No . . . “power”, ability to overcome, something that came directly from God and that is called “grace”.
Nonsense. The good Professor Dr. deSilva did exactly that, a 84 page word study . . . on a single NT word. With lots of examples of usage, both inside and outside the NT. We have done precisely the same.
Would you allow grace = charis = gift = money?
No, grace does not at all = money. God does not give grace or salvation because of merit on our part. These ideas are called heresy and were condemned in Church counsels such as Orange which are accepted by Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran and even Reformed based Churches.. Since you don’t and for that fact Bill Gothard doesn’t which is probably why this is a major error on his part.
Please re-read 2 Corinthians 8. It most definitely calls money “grace”.
As to condemnation by counsels, I would hope that we would be “Bereans” and not just accept the edicts of various bodies assembled to decide this or that. THAT is the sort of thing we exist for, to allow that Bereans search to proceed.
Back to the point . . . Is not money specifically referred to over and over in 2 Cor. 8 as “charis”, grace?
“Praying us with much intreaty that we would receive the gift[charis], and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints.” (2 Corinthians 8:4). “Therefore, as ye abound in every thing, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace[charis] also.” (Vs. 7). ”“And not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace, which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready mind:” (vs. 19)
I did and gift/charis as used here says nothing about money. This is a sad over stretch. The emphasis here again is on gift due to God NOT due to ourselves and for one thing money is never mentioned. To try and twist Greek words around in an effort to support Bill definition is really very sad.
OK, one more try. Most folks believe that the word “grace” in 2 Cor. 8 refers specifically to the cash that was collected, carried, and disseminated. Example, John Gill: “bounty or beneficence of the churches, what they had freely and liberally contributed for the supply of the poor, from a principle of grace, and by the assistance of it”. “this grace” (vs. 19) was the money, true or false.
I have know idea what you mean by “most”. Most to you will not be the same as most to me. It’s a meaningless comparison. Chapter 8 is about a collection St. Paul was doing for the Church in Jerusalem. The Macedonia Church gave generously to this in response to God’s Grace given to them in their own trials. You are trying to twist this to say that the Macedonia Churches got more grace because they gave money. I think you ought to take up these notions with Martin Luther because your ideas on money and grace sound like something that he condemned in his 95 theses. Maybe you ought to read them. Whatever
“most” people interpreting this section your way, all I can say is “God help them”.
I am asking . . . does the word “grace” . . . as used in 2 Cor. 8 . . . become a term that in this context MEANS “the cash you collected”? It seems pretty clear it does.
“Praying us with much intreaty that we would receive the gift[charis], and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints.” (2 Corinthians 8:4). “Therefore, as ye abound in every thing, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace[charis] also.” (Vs. 7). ”“And not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace, which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready mind:” (vs. 19)
In the examples above, does the word “charis” refer to something tangible – cash – or not? “Receive the charis” . . . “travel with us with this charis” 🙂 Just say yes . . . or say no and explain what it DOES mean.
Ok, my answer is no. Grace or the Greek word Charis means what we both have quoted from Strongs. The collection from the Corinthian Churches for the Church in Jerusalem is an EXAMPLE or demonstration of Grace operating in their lives in that these early Christians willingly gave to other’s they didn’t know or see to met needs. They gave without “merit”. They gave freely and generously. That is how God’s grace operates in us and we in turn towards others. This happen to be monetary but giving and grace can involve any type of extension of ourselves towards others, free and unmerited. To interpret this other than an EXAMPLE of grace is missing the point of the passage and St. Paul’s accolades to the Corinthians.
The fact that “grace” is translated “gift” doesn’t matter? 🙂 They were begging Paul earnestly to receive the _____ (gift). WHAT was it that they were urging him to take? Favor, favorable-ness? Come on. The item to be received . . . was . . . cash. “Charis” “Paul, Please, PLEASE take this cash from us” “Paul, Please, PLEASE take this grace from us” “Paul, George over there will carry the cash for you to Jerusalem” “Paul, George over there will carry the grace for you to Jerusalem” I commend your stubbornness, but you help your cause not a bit by denying the obvious. And if you read the article by Dr. deSilva, you will see that is EXACTLY how that word came to be. Not “favor” but . . . “favors”.
Matthew Henry:
“He certainly means the charitable gifts of these churches, which are called the grace or gifts of God”
“they prayed him with much entreaty to receive the gift [charis],”
Wesley
“He was appointed by the churches – Of Macedonia. With this gift[charis] – Which they were carrying from Macedonia to Jerusalem”
Scofield
“In 2Cor. 8., 9., the apostle sums up the Christian doctrine of giving. It may be thus summarized:
(1) It is a “grace,” i.e. a disposition created by the Spirit 2 Corinthians 8:7 ” <-- See that? A "disposition" to give is a "grace". THAT is motivation . . . and ability . . . to do something we would not otherwise 🙂
Sigh …. I already said charis = gift. In trying to defend Bill’s definition of grace, you are trying to twist this all around. Because the Macedonia Churches gave money gift to help their fellow Christians, that does not mean that grace = money. This was an example of giving freely and without merit or expectation of return. The quotes you just did support charts = grace = gift, it doesn’t mean nor did they say grace = money. Bill has twisted your thinking and analysis. There is nothing in anything you quoted from Wesley, Scofield etc. that support power or obedience which is Bill’s definition and the definition you are trying to defend here. The example of money is just that, an example of Christians giving to others. It could have been another form of giving. This is also an example of collective giving, not individual.
Rob, you are as completely committed to your explanation as you suggest I am to mine. Nothing can be interpreted outside it. There you go again with “unmerited”. The Greek WORD grace – “charis” – does not intrinsically MEAN “unmerited”. It DOES mean a “gift” to be sure. But a gift can be given “in kind” or in response to some characteristic that is set by the giver. For example, THIS “grace” – cash – was not given to all Jews, or to Gentiles, or to Christians in Tarsus . . . but to Jewish believers in Jerusalem. All others need not apply.
But the biggest takeaway is that “grace” very much is something very tangible. The “gift” is not a favorable attitude, Rob. Do you see that?
I would say that your view of “gift” falls more in line with a reward. It goes back to one’s view of God. Is God the task master with a big stick up in heaven ready to clobber you at any miss step or is God our loving father that wants a relationship with His wayward children? You keep moving the target and the meaning here of gift. If I give a gift, it is free and clear, it isn’t a reward, it is a gift. Charis or grace or gift is just that and not based on as a reward for being good since none of us deserve salvation, it is a gift. Now most people reject God and His offer of salvation. You are trying to misuse one corner of Corinthians which was a monetary gift from one group of Christians to another (free and clear) and turn it around to have grace mean either money or something tangible which flies in the face a a bunch of other verses that concern grace and gifts etc., especially in St. Paul’s letters.
Only a theologian would say, “If I give a gift, it is free and clear, it isn’t a reward, it is a gift.” That is not true in real life. The government gave me a great many gifts enabling me to graduate from University with no debt. I had to qualify for the gifts, had to have a reasonable GPA, financial need and all. I was also given gifts by the University, free and clear . . . for which I qualified by having a good GPA. What it was NOT was “recompense in kind”, i.e. a “wage”. The “gifts” given us in heaven are most emphatically “rewards” . . . for good service, faithfulness, things we are incapable of buying, if you will, but definitely have criteria for acquisition . . . things you can lose “for cause”. Things Paul was earnestly striving for, he said.
So . . . yes . . . most definitely God’s gifts are “for cause”. Not just anyone gets salvation, for example. If so . . . everyone would be saved. Even your Catholic tradition cites the sacraments, faithfulness . . . purgatory. Mine leaves all of that out . . . but repentance, a broken spirit, humility is absolutely necessary to securing salvation. One could even say the “worthy” ones are the ones who deliberately drop all claims of worthiness. Choosing to believe Him . . . “Walking” through the open door. Hear Jesus words:
Luke 20:35
“But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage . . .”
That absolutely nails it. You don’t get “eternal life” unless you are counted “worthy”. You once were “unworthy” . . . and then you become “worthy”. Unilateral gifts . . . come to you whether you are worthy or not. Grace is emphatically not that.
What you are calling “gifts” that enabled you to attend and finish college sound like scholarships, and of course scholarships usually have some type of qualifications with them (grades, economic situation etc.). Maybe you want to use this as an example of a “gift” but they are scholarships or grants. Monies to attend college is not the same thing as the grace of God for salvation.
Since you mentioned it, the biggest sacrament is the Eucharist or communion which is always “received”, never taken. I was in a class once and the priest explained that one “receives” communion as a gift and the action of receiving communion is to emphasize that the grace in communion is a gift just as salvation is a gift. We do not take communion on our own actions. That I can clearly contrast to UMC where I “took” communion on my own action (from a plate being passed around). Taking is an action on our part, receiving is passive. One comes forward to receive but it is still a free gift. Sacrament means outward sign of God’s giving inward grace or graces.
Maybe you consider “theologians” a negative term but I will take it as a compliment.
So . . . If you openly support abortion, will your priest allow you to “receive the gift of the Eucharist”? :-). Or pick the sin . . . You did not pick a good example.
What does abortion have to do with this discussion? I’ not sure what your point or dig is about. It’s time to move on.
You said . . . the Eucharist is like grace, given and received freely. Did I misunderstand your analogy?
I think whatever answer I give will, 1. get us way off topic, 2. be twisted and turned around. I was speaking to more of the position or posture which emphasizes receiving and before Vatican II, done even kneeling to emphasize humility and our overall unworthiness to receive Christ. But probably in a short answer, yes. In a more qualified answer, one has to be a baptized member in good standing ( not in serious sin) to present themselves to receive communion. There are obviously lots of people that should not be presenting themselves, in an reference to your comment about abortion (pro-abortion “catholic” politicians).
I presume you would see the purpose of my presenting that. “Charis” – in this case “EU-Charis” is given freely and received freely . . . IF you are qualified. If not, not at all. So . . . is that “unmerited” or no?
The literal meaning of Eucharist which is Greek is thanksgiving. Interesting that Charis is buried in the word Eucharist. thanks for pointing it out. So I would say that our attitude is gratitude for receiving Christ and His graces in the Eucharist. I like that.
I begin my reply . . . By noting that DG got recently hacked, taking us off the air for the day yesterday. We shall see how good our IT department is in having fixed it.
—————————
Yes . . . “Eu” as a prefix means “good”, “pleasant” . . . Thanksgiving is an expression of grace. Noted above . . . Somewhere . . . Is that fact that the raw word “charis” is also translated occasionally “thanksgiving”, even as it is occasionally translated “gift”.
Back the point. The priest can and does withhold freely procured “Eu-Charist”. IS the Eucharist unmerited . . . Or merited?
let me ask you this, is our salvation merited or unmerited?
I can’t answer that until you tell me if the Eucharist in the Catholic tradition is merited or unmerited. By your answer I will understand what you mean by “unmerited”. If you choose “unmerited” then you will have to explain how it can have such strict rules for being administered, and can be permitted or removed “for cause”.
re: eligibility standards for Catholic eucharist
On two of the few occasions this Methodist has attended Mass, I got turned down when I sought to receive the Eucharist. I did not meet the eligibility standards. That’s not a complaint (I applaud their scruples), rather an observation that some dispensations of charis have filters. I did not pass through Rome’s filter, though I have passed through filters of other communions, including my own present communion.
I am not following why one would present themselves for communion when they are not part of that community of faith and knowing that it’s not an “open” communion to those on the outside. There must have been an awareness that you are not Catholic by your gestures or behaviors. That however is not “merit”. It would have saved you and the Eucharistic minister/priest the embarrassment of denial. It also speaks about respect, i.e. having respect for the parameters of another faith’s teaching concerning communion. I would not partake in a non-Catholic communion, even if it was an “open” communion which most Protestant Churches are.
re: inside vs. outside of community
Okay, I had not bothered to inquire in advance about Rome’s communion policies. Whether one is a inside or outside a community would depend on how broadly or narrowly we define community. I was baptized, believed the ecumenical creeds, had a clear conscience, so it seemed natural to come to the table. Silly liberal me. Now I see that baptism, belief, and good conduct were not sufficient. Live and learn. No offense to anyone, I hope.
You know, it’s one thing to do something out of ignorance, it is another to do something again out of either arrogance or to test the system to see what would happen. Sorry but I have a hard time believing the ignorance excuse. Many Christian communities have closed communions. It is out of respect to follow those sorts of directives, and lack of respect to knowingly try to violate or test. Pretty sad statement.
Alfred, I will quote directly from scripture and what is said at the beginning of every Mass, “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the words, and my soul shall be healed”. It’s what the centurion said to Jesus when he requested healing for a servant. That is your answer.
Thanks, Rob. I am not sure I am fully tracking. The quote you gave is not straight from Scripture, at least the part about “my soul shall be saved”, a twist on “my servant shall be healed”.
But . . . I am still puzzled to find “unmerited” in there . . . ANYWHERE. Can you show me what part of communion is “unmerited”? And . . . HOW is it unmerited.
re: testing the system
We sometimes test systems, hoping that charity vanquishes system. When the good samaritan helped his neighbor, he demonstrated that neighborliness should trump system. The priest and Levite remained within their legalistic system, never to depart.
When a good man apologizes, he tests whether his humility can vanquish his neighbor’s bitterness system. When a man proposes to a woman, he hopes to charm her suitor screening system.
So if I tested a system, I am in good company.
You know David, the more you go on, the worst it gets. I didn’t know that Bill taught people to “test” systems or authority but that is what you just stated here. The rest of the reasoning and justification is so convoluted, that I almost don’t know where to begin but trying to “test” taking communion in another Church that you don’t below to, don’t believe in or agree with has nothing to do with “charity” or looking for “charity” at all and absolutely has nothing to do with the Good Samaritan either. Unbelievable. As to humility, you haven’t even displayed that either in the defiant attitude and your justification. All I can say is that the Holy Spirit was at work twice in whoever you approached and stopped your attempt which is considered a desecration. Maybe God was telling you something and you were ultimately stopped by Him.
We should probably move on from this side topic. I DO hope I can connect with you, Rob, on ‘unmerited’. I felt we had a golden opportunity to figure this out as you declared the Eucharist “grace”. I suspect that if I can understand what “unmerited” means to you in the Eucharist, I will be better able to explain how Bill’s definition of grace lines up perfectly. You have danced around it, but still not answered the questions I had.
Once again, YOU cited communion as a prime example of “unmerited grace”. IF you can explain what that means in communion, I may understand what you mean about “unmerited grace”. I see communion tightly controlled, given only to the “worthy”, and can be removed “for cause”. HOW is that “unmerited” to you?