http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1916 A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:15:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1916#comment-32564 Funky Dung Sat, 09 Dec 2006 01:41:36 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1923#comment-32564 Would theraputic meditation be out of the question? That is, would it be appropriate for Christians to use yogic meditation for its calming and restorative effects? http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1916#comment-2922 Tom Smith Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1923#comment-2922 And about the practice of yoga by Christians. I don't see a problem, if the reason one is engaging in it is for exercise or calisthenic purposes. If the purpose becomes meditative, however, it is plainly not appropriate for Christians to engage in it, if for no other reason than that there are dozens of means of Christian meditation which are eminently more appropriate. St. Dominic's Nine Ways of Prayer and the Hesychast tradition in the Byzantine East seem to me to be good replacements for yoga. http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1916#comment-2923 Tom Smith Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1923#comment-2923 Regarding the "Catholics are Semi-Pelagian" link.<br /><br />I can see where he's coming from, although I don't agree. Both Catholics and Calvinists believe that their respective faiths are faithful to Saint Augustine. When Catholicism is evaluated by Calvinists, of course it wouldn't seem to fit the Augustinian model, because Catholicism doesn't have a formal teaching regarding Augustine's notions surrounding irresistibility of grace or unconditional election, whereas Calvinists practically treat Augustine as the second Bible, and see his notions of grace as dogma (that, and Calvinists interpret Augustine's model of election as Calvinistic double predestination [predestinarianism], which Catholics do not). Augustine and Aquinas would hold to both doctrines above, but that doesn't necessarily amount to a teaching. Many Catholics, not wanting to hold to these rather unpleasant doctrines, simply reject them because they can, even though they are definitely the dominant belief of Catholic theologians. I would advise this author to read the canons of the First Council of Orange, and then re-evaluate his assessment of Catholic semi-Pelagianism. Here are some highlights:<br /><br />Canon 2. If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12).<br /><br />Canon 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1). <br /><br />Canon 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).<br /><br />Canon 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism — if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.<br /><br />Canon 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).<br /><br />Canon 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).<br /><br />***<br /><br />And how is Catholic soteriology "confused?" I think it's pretty clear...<br /><br />Also, I noticed that he refuses to capitalize the first letters of the words "Roman," "Catholic," and "Church." One can tell how virulently opposed to Catholicism an author is by their frequency of capitalization. This dude's 0/3.
I can see where he's coming from, although I don't agree. Both Catholics and Calvinists believe that their respective faiths are faithful to Saint Augustine. When Catholicism is evaluated by Calvinists, of course it wouldn't seem to fit the Augustinian model, because Catholicism doesn't have a formal teaching regarding Augustine's notions surrounding irresistibility of grace or unconditional election, whereas Calvinists practically treat Augustine as the second Bible, and see his notions of grace as dogma (that, and Calvinists interpret Augustine's model of election as Calvinistic double predestination [predestinarianism], which Catholics do not). Augustine and Aquinas would hold to both doctrines above, but that doesn't necessarily amount to a teaching. Many Catholics, not wanting to hold to these rather unpleasant doctrines, simply reject them because they can, even though they are definitely the dominant belief of Catholic theologians. I would advise this author to read the canons of the First Council of Orange, and then re-evaluate his assessment of Catholic semi-Pelagianism. Here are some highlights:

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

And how is Catholic soteriology "confused?" I think it's pretty clear…

Also, I noticed that he refuses to capitalize the first letters of the words "Roman," "Catholic," and "Church." One can tell how virulently opposed to Catholicism an author is by their frequency of capitalization. This dude's 0/3.]]>