Aquinas: There Is No Hope Of Justification, But Only By Faith...We Conclude That A Man Is Justified By Faith Without The Works Of The Law

Here's an interesting Aquinas tidbit from an old discussion list:

Et sie exponit Glossa. Sed Apostolus videtur loqui de moralibus, quia subdit quod lex posita est propter peccata, et haec sunt praecepta moralia. Horum legitimus usus est ut homo non attribuat eis plus quam quod in eis continetur. Data est lex ut cognoscatur peccatum. Roman., vii, 7: Quia nisi lex diceret,non concupisces (quod dicitur in Decalogo) concupiscentiam nesciebam. Non est ergo in eis spec justificationis, sed insola fide. Roman., iii, 28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem sine operibus legis.

"But the Apostle seems to be speaking about morals, because he adds that the law was set forth because of sin, and the law consists of moral precepts. The proper use of these precepts is that man not attribute to them more than what is contained in them. The law was given so that sin might be recognized. As Romans 7:7 says, "Unless the law were saying, 'Do not covet,' (which the Decalogue says), I would not have known about covetousness. In the precepts, therefore, there is no hope (spec=spes?) of justification, but only by faith. As Romans 3:28 says, "We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law."

Thomas Aquinas, "Epistola I Ad Timotheum", "Lectio III" in *Opera Omnia*, Volume 21: *Commentarii in Epistolam Ad Corinthios 1 In Caeteras Omnes Epistolas S. Pauli.* Paris: Apud Ludovicum Vives, Bibliopolam Editorem, 1876, page 456.

https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2013/01/aquinas-there-is-no-hope-of.html

A Double-Standard Raised In Arguing That Morals Are A Product Of Evolution

"In a promotional piece for his book, Wright says, "My hope is that people will use the knowledge [in this book] not only to improve their lives-as a source of 'self-help'-but as cause to treat other people more decently" (emphasis ours).

This statement captures a major flaw in Wright's analysis. His entire thesis is that chance evolution explains morality, that the environment selects those whose morals are beneficial or survival. Morality is a product of nature.

Yet Wright frequently lapses, unconsciously making reference to a morality that seems to transcend nature. Take this comment: "Human beings are a species splendid in their array of moral equipment, tragic in their propensity to misuse it, and pathetic in their constitutional ignorance of the misuse" (emphasis ours). Wright reflects on the moral equipment randomly given to us by nature and then bemoans our immoral use of it with such words as tragic, pathetic, and misuse.

He writes, "Go above and beyond the call of a smoothly functioning conscience; help those who aren't likely to help you in return, and do so when nobody's watching. This is one way to be a truly moral animal."

It's almost as if he has two categories of morality-nature's morality and a transcendent standard used to judge nature's morality. But where did this transcendent standard come from? If transcendent morality judges the "morality" that evolution is responsible for, the it can't itself be accounted for by evolution."

Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air, p. 159

The Type Of People Consistent Moral Relativism Produces

"In our society, we have a name for these people; they are a homicide detective's worst nightmare. The quintessential relativist is a sociopath, one who has no conscience. This is what relativism produces.

Something is terribly wrong with an alleged moral point of view that produces a psychopath as its brightest star. This is another reason relativism does not qualify as an ethical viewpoint.

Relativism does not stand in any great moral tradition. Rather, it has been universally rejected by all. The supreme moral teachers of all time-Moses, Jesus, the apostle Paul, Buddha, Aristotle, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr.-have all condemned this view.

Relativism simply is not a moral point of view. Its "morality" is no different than having no morality at all, its moral hero is a sociopath, and has been opposed by every moral tradition. Those who are relativists have no morality."

Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air, p. 31

Moral Principles Correspond With Objective Truths

       "...If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Greeks, and Romans, what will really him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own." (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, p. 6)

       This factor certainly is a powerful support of the moral argument for the existence of God. It shows that He has inscribed His moral laws into our hearts. If moral relativism is true, then it would be difficult to imagine how something like the golden rule (i.e. love your neighbor as yourself) can be found in ancient human civilizations outside the Judeo-Christian framework.

       "...Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to-whether it was only your own family, or your fellow country men, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they always have agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked." (ibid. p. 6)

       This seems to point to a moral Law Giver, with the problem being our sin nature that we inherited due to the fall of Adam and Eve. Lewis provides examples such as the condemnation of selfishness and the regulation of sexual behavior. These examples further support the idea that certain moral principles are universally recognized.

       "...surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did-if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbors or drive them mad or bring bad weather-surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did? There is a difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about a matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house" (ibid. p. 14-15)

        The discussion about executing witches illustrates how changes in belief about facts (e.g. the existence of witches) do not change moral principles. This suggests that our moral expectations and actions are grounded in objective truths.

Does 1 Corinthians 13:2 Refute Justification By Faith Alone?

• Discussion:

          -The purpose of this article is to answer a number of claims made by Joe Heschmeyer on the doctrine of justification by faith and the nature of love. He tries to pit love in action against the teaching that justification before God is not on the basis of meritorious works. This critique begins with an excerpt from the author and is followed with critical commentary:

          "Now, the first two, even by themselves are meritorious. Romans 4:3 reminds us that by Genesis 15:6, Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” But from this must come the third part of faith — the obedience of faith. After all, James 2:19 notes that even the demons have these first two forms of faith."

          A faith that motivates a person to do the things of God involves trust. Demons believe that God exists, but refuse to place their trust in Him. 

          "So Abraham is faithful not because he has just the first two forms of faith, but because he has all three. Protestants often claim that you can’t have the first two forms of faith without the third, but this is wrong — as noted, the demons do."

           Obedience done in faith does not constitute what faith is itself. Such is a consequence of faith. It is the "instrument" of our justification before God. Faith is not inherently meritorious. By itself, it bestows no benefits to a man. Faith conveys the presence of merit because of what it rests on: the person and work of Jesus Christ. He Himself has standing before God.

          "First, Paul says that faith without love is nothing. And second, Paul speaks of the various spiritual gifts a bit later in the chapter, and says that love is greater than faith. Now, from Luther’s perspective, if you truly believed Jesus was Lord, that faith would necessarily result in love and good works. But here, Paul’s talking about people for who that just isn’t so. They believe that Jesus is Lord, they perhaps even believe He’s calling them to love, but they just don’t."

          The Apostle Paul does not set forth moral commandments without grounding them in our identity with Jesus Christ. Calls for believers to love each other are based on being united in the family of God. We receive a new identity in Christ prior to becoming one of His followers. Love is the greatest of all spiritual gifts because it endures forever. We long to encounter God in eternity. Our faith and hope will reach their designated goal as we enjoy fellowship with God.

          "In the context of 1 Corinthians 13, Paul is explaining why out of faith, hope and love, “the greatest of these is love” (1 Corinthians 13:13). He’s comparing real faith with real hope and real love, and saying that love still greater, because real faith, by itself, isn’t enough.

           The Apostle Paul says that the Christians at Corinth have been washed, sanctified, and justified (1 Corinthians 6:11). This description has been given in the past tense. Paul's exhortations flow from this statement. The context of this passage is not about us meriting our justification before God.

          "The KJV version of Galatians 5:6 nails it: “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.” Paul’s phrase, also translated “faith working through love” sums everything I’ve said up succinctly: for faith to be worth anything, it must not be mere belief, or even belief combined with trust, but belief, trust and loving obedience.

          Interestingly enough, the Roman Catholic New American Bible has this footnote on this passage from Galatians 5:

          "The Greek for faith working through love or “faith expressing itself through love” can also be rendered as “faith energized by (God’s) love.”

          Faith is the root. Love is the product of that faith. It is evidenced or made manifest by our love. Galatians 5:6 is not inconsistent with the doctrine of justification by faith alone because it affirms that the performance of good works follows a change of heart.

          "So where Luther was wrong was that he believed that all true seeds of faith eventually bore the fruit of good works, so that as long as you had a seed, you knew you’d eventually have fruit. That’s not true. The parable of the sower appears in Matthew 13, Mark 4, and Luke 8 — in all three versions, the exact same seed is thrown, and yet depending of the soil (the disposition of the hearer of the word of God), it either dies out at once, grows and then dies out, or grows and bears fruit.

          The Parable of the Sower relates to the preaching of the gospel and what people do with that message. The seed is to be identified as the gospel. Good works will always spring forth from genuine faith because it is God who works in us to accomplish His will.

Does 2 Timothy 1:16-18 Offer Support For Praying To Mary And The Saints?

          There is no way of decisively knowing whether or not Onesiphorus was dead when the Apostle Paul wrote this epistle. Inferences can certainly be drawn in debating such a question, but the context of this verse does not conclusively rule in favor of either side. Further, knowing whether or not Onesiphorus was dead at the time Paul wrote 2 Timothy is not necessary in order for the text to make sense to us.

          Perhaps Onesiphorus was alive and simply away from home, so Paul had an urge to pray for his companion's family. What we can gather from this text beyond a reasonable doubt is that the two were not together at the time. One commentator says the following: "Knowing that even these good deeds could not save Onesiphorus and his house, the apostle asks the Lord to show mercy to his friend — to keep him in the grace of God that he might persevere until the very end." This makes perfect sense because Christians were persecuted during this time. A prayer for perseverance to the end would, by definition, mean that he was still alive. 

          Even if Onesiphorus was dead at this point in time, that would only mean the apostle was petitioning God to show mercy to the man and his family on the Day of Judgment. After all, he was very beneficial to Paul during his ministry. He wanted his household to be blessed as a result of his faithfulness and loyalty. This scenario would be similar to King David blessing the household of Jonathon and his descendants (2 Samuel 9:1-7). Paul would essentially be expressing a hope for Onesiphorus to be resting in peace. These comments from English divine and scholar Edward Hayes Plumptre are insightful here:

          "It is, at any rate, clear that such a simple utterance of hope in prayer, like the Shalom (peace) of Jewish, and the Requiescat or Refrigerium of early Christian epitaphs, and the like prayers in early liturgies, though they sanction the natural outpouring of affectionate yearnings, are as far as possible from the full-blown Romish theory of purgatory."

          Onesiphorus received complete forgiveness of sins at the moment of his conversion. If he was dead when Paul wrote 2 Timothy, then his fate was already sealed. No amount of prayers could possibly alter or help his eternal destiny. Paul was neither praying to him nor supporting the idea of anybody else doing such. He was not praying that Onesiphorus would be released from purgatory or anything in those lines.

Is The Book Of Enoch Inspired Scripture?

          A pseudepigraphal text known as the Book of Enoch was gradually written and assembled into one volume, with the oldest section being the Apocalypse of Weeks (dated to the second century BC). This work has caught the attention of numerous people because of its detailed descriptions of heaven and angels. The Book of Enoch has extra-biblical accounts regarding the Nephilim race and fallen angels. In a few words, it is a work of apocalyptical speculation. 

          Some Christians have raised the question as to whether the Book of Enoch is inspired due to it seemingly being quoted in Jude 14-15. Others have even devised a conspiracy theory that it was removed from the canon of Scripture. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes Enoch in its own list of books comprising the Bible. This ancient compilation was even venerated by early Christian authorities such as Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, and Irenaeus. However, there is no reason for us to accept it as inspired Scripture. The words of John Oakes are pertinent here:

          "Why, then, did the church in Alexandria, and therefore eventually the Coptic church, including the Ethiopian and the Egyptian churches, accept this book? This is not clear, but we know from the evidence that the early church began to use the OT apocrypha and other books, such as 1 Enoch, as early as the second century. Why Alexandria in particular used 1 Enoch more than the churches in Antioch, Constantinople and Rome is not clear, but we can speculate that they had more interest in eschatology (the study of end times) and apocalyptic literature in general. We know that Origen was open to fairly speculative theology and that Alexandria was the center of allegorical interpretation."

           The Essene Jews esteemed this five part compilation highly, but their beliefs were entrenched in mysticism. The Encyclopedia Britannica says that, "Its survival is due to the fascination of marginal and heretical Christian groups, such as the Manichaeans, with its syncretic blending of Iranian, Greek, Chaldean, and Egyptian elements."

          The Book of Enoch contains things that are arguably false. One well-known account is that of the Watchers, a group of fallen angels who, according to the text, descended to Earth, married human women, and fathered a race of giants called the Nephilim. Additionally, the book describes a detailed cosmology, with intricate depictions of the structure of the heavens and the underworld, which sharply contrasts with modern scientific understanding of the cosmos. The prophetic visions of Enoch are another contentious aspect, detailing future judgments and divine punishments that do not correspond with historical events or canonical biblical prophecy.

           Even if Jude made reference to the Book of Enoch, that point in and of itself does not give us reason to incorporate it into the canon of Scripture. The Apostle Paul on a few occasions quoted pagan philosophers, yet those who believe in the divine inspiration of Enoch would not argue for the inclusion of those into the canon. Many truthful statements can be found apart from the Bible in a wide variety of contexts. The New Testament author does not call what he alludes to Scripture. Rather, the text reads as "Enoch said." The Old Testament has apocalyptic passages of its own (Isaiah 66:15-16; Zechariah 14:5). 

          How are Christians supposed to view the Book of Enoch? We are to approach it as a literary unit. It has value for historical research as do other ancient sources like Josephus. Moreover, this composite writing has been altered so many times by both Jews and Christians that there is no grounds to include it in the canon. The Ethiopic edition is a translation of the Greek text, which was already translated from the original Aramaic text. The textual reliability of this work is questionable at best. Enoch consists of more than one writing and has a complicated editorial history.

Study: Psychiatric Diagnoses Are ‘Scientifically Meaningless’ In Treating Mental Health

No two people are exactly alike. Therefore, attempting to classify each unique individual’s mental health issues into neat categories just doesn’t work. That’s the claim coming out of the United Kingdom that is sure to ruffle some psychologists’ feathers.

More people are being diagnosed with mental illnesses than ever before. Multiple factors can be attributed to this rise; many people blame the popularity of social media and increased screen time, but it is also worth considering that in today’s day and age more people may be willing to admit they are having mental health issues in the first place. Whatever the reason, it is generally believed that a psychiatric diagnosis is the first step to recovery.

That’s why a new study conducted at the University of Liverpool has raised eyebrows by concluding that psychiatric diagnoses are “scientifically meaningless,” and worthless as tools to accurately identify and address mental distress at an individual level.

Researchers performed a detailed analysis on five of the most important chapters in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Heath Disorders (DSM). The DSM is considered the definitive guide for mental health professionals, and provides descriptions for all mental health problems and their symptoms. The five chapters analyzed were: bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, and trauma-related disorders.

Researchers came to a number of troubling conclusions. First, the study’s authors assert that there is a significant amount of overlap in symptoms between disorder diagnoses, despite the fact that each diagnosis utilizes different decision rules. Additionally, these diagnoses completely ignore the role of trauma or other unique adverse events a person may encounter in their life.

Perhaps most concerning of all, researchers say that these diagnoses tell us little to nothing about the individual patient and what type of treatments they will need. The authors ultimately conclude that this diagnostic labeling approach is “a disingenuous categorical system.”

"Although diagnostic labels create the illusion of an explanation they are scientifically meaningless and can create stigma and prejudice. I hope these findings will encourage mental health professionals to think beyond diagnoses and consider other explanations of mental distress, such as trauma and other adverse life experiences.” Lead researcher Dr. Kate Allsopp explains in a release.

According to the study’s authors, the traditional diagnostic system being used today wrongly assumes that any and all mental distress is caused by a disorder, and relies far too heavily on subjective ideas about what is considered “normal.”

“Perhaps it is time we stopped pretending that medical-sounding labels contribute anything to our understanding of the complex causes of human distress or of what kind of help we need when distressed.” Professor John Read comments.

https://www.studyfinds.org/study-psychiatric-diagnoses-are-scientifically-meaningless/

Theoretical Physicist [Sabine Hossenfelder] Has A Hard Time Convincing Peers To Accept Reality

Sometimes I believe in string theory. Then I wake up.

But then I got distracted by a disturbing question: Do we actually have evidence that elegance is a good guide to the laws of nature?

The brief answer is no, we have no evidence. The long answer is in my book and, yes, I will mention the-damned-book until everyone is sick of it. The summary is: Beautiful ideas sometimes work, sometimes they don’t. It’s just that many physicists prefer to recall the beautiful ideas which did work.

And not only is there no historical evidence that beauty and elegance are good guides to find correct theories, there isn’t even a theory for why that should be so. There’s no reason to think that our sense of beauty has any relevance for discovering new fundamental laws of nature.

Sure, if you ask those who believe in string theory and supersymmetry and in grand unification, they will say that of course they know there is no reason to believe a beautiful theory is more likely to be correct. They still work on them anyway. Because what better could they do with their lives? Or with their grants, respectively. And if you work on it, you better believe in it.

...here are the facts: This trust in beauty as a guide, it’s not working. There’s no evidence for grand unification. There’s no evidence for supersymmetry, no evidence for axions, no evidence for moduli, for WIMPs, or for dozens of other particles that were invented to prettify theories which work just fine without them. After decades of search, there’s no evidence for any of these.

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/01/sometimes-i-believe-in-string-theory.html

Is Mary The Mother of God?

• Defining The Issues:

          -In 431 AD, the Council of Ephesus declared that Mary was "theotokos," a Greek term which is translated to mean "God-bearer." This was done to affirm the deity of Jesus Christ in response to the Archbishop Nestorius, who believed in separating His human and divine natures (i.e. a heresy termed "Nestorianism"). In a nutshell, the title theotokos was originally used to defend the full deity of Jesus Christ against heretics.
          -Pope John Paul II, in a speech in 1996, encouraged people “not only to invoke the Blessed Virgin as the Mother of Jesus, but also to recognize her as Mother of God” (L'Osservatore Romano, 4, December 1996, p. 11). Today, the Roman Catholic Church uses this title, which was initially centered around the nature of Christ, as a way to exalt Mary.
          -"...the term God-bearer as it was used in the [Chalcedon] creed and as it was applied to Mary in these controversies said something about the nature of Christ, not the nature Mary. "Mother of God" is a phrase that has proper theological meaning only in reference to Christ. Hence, any use of the term that is not simply saying, "Jesus is fully God, one divine Person with two natures," is using the term anachronistically, and cannot claim the authority of the early church for such usage." (James R. White, Mary: Another Redeemer?, p. 47-48)

• Understanding This Title In A Proper Sense:

          -God is eternal (Genesis 1:1; Psalm 90:2). Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh. So Mary could not be His mother in that His divine nature originated in her womb. It is biblical to say that Mary was the mother of Jesus during His incarnation on earth. Mary did indeed carry both of Christ's natures in her womb as His body was still developing. These statements are in accordance with Scripture, and Roman Catholics would readily agree with them. On the contrary, the Roman Catholic Church has attached all sorts of bizarre teachings regarding Mary to the biblical concept of her motherhood.

• Additional Commentary On The Mother Of God Title:

          -Roman Catholic apologists have taken advantage of the ambiguity surrounding this title for the purpose of giving credibility to their Marian theology. Mary in the Catholic Church shares several of the same qualities and abilities as Christ Himself. The many titles ascribed to her perfectly fit the description of a goddess. 

          -Nowhere does Scripture justify erecting pillars in the name of Mary, giving her extreme titles of exaltation, and assigning providential roles to her. Kissing and weeping in front of statues of prominent Christian figures is also idolatry. The Roman Catholic Church calls Mary the mother of mercy. It has even been said that Mary sits at the right hand of the Lord Jesus Christ! None of this has any foundation in biblical teaching.
          -It is not necessary for us to resort to titles created by men, much less a Marian title, in drawing up inferences about the nature of Christ. Statements about how we come to understand Him can be made firsthand from His person, such as the Lamb of God, Son of God, and the God-man. Scripture already has enough information on the the person of Christ. 

          -The title mother of God has been mishandled to support an unbiblical ideology. Church councils are authoritative, insofar that they are consistent with the written Word of God. The sayings of men about theology are only subjective opinions and speculations apart from an objective standard to test them. Why is Mary's mother not called the Grandmother of God? Why would this exaltation not extend to her own lineage?