Aquinas meets the Truly Reformed - Round II.

Rhology responds:

PSB,

a biblical position because the bible is filled with references to sins having different gravities and effects...Christ Himself points to degrees of sin

Which I allowed for (look again), but the biblical text does not sustain the idea that one can lose one's justification as Rome teaches, which is what I was expressing.

I suspect that you would acknowledge that the sin against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31) can do exactly that.

No, I would not acknowledge that.
I repeat - NOTHING will cause the justified, adopted child of God to perish. John 10:29 - "they will never perish." Rom 8:29-30 - "those whom He justified those He also glorified."
If someone commits the blasphemy of the HS, it's proof that *he never knew Christ in the 1st place.* Remember Jesus' words - "I never knew you."
I hold to the Perseverance of the Saints. Do you understand that doctrine?

there are sins that are “mortal” – or unto death - and those which are not. 1 John 5:16.

Given that the idea of losing one's justification is biblically untenable, this refers to sthg else: God putting a disobedient child to death, for example.

detract from a person’s perfection and must be “purged” before that person can enter Heaven (1 Corinthians 3: 8 – 15)

This is demonstrably false.
And the idea that Christ's righteousness which is imputed to me as per Romans 4:6-8 is imperfect in some way is an amazingly horrible thought.

It seems that it is possible to keep the 10 Commandments more or less than perfectly

You mean "less than perfectly," right? There is none who can even come close, as Gal 3 makes plain.

In other words, the term “sin” is applied to two different things: one thing is what we truly mean by sin – a firm and deliberate turning away from God. The other involves something beyond the commandments but not necessarily contradictory to it.

Biblically, how would you sustain that distinction?

perfectly “lawful” conduct may be “sinful” if it fails to take into account charity to one’s neighbor.

Which is a terrible, terrible sin: lack of love.
You seem to be doing what Dozie seems to be objecting to: lessening how bad sin is. That's the main problem here.

The other kind of sin – breaches of the commandments, if you would – may not truly be sin if they are built upon Christ or connected to a love of God or a love of neighbor.

1 John 3 says that sin is lawlessness. How can you justify this statement?

You essentially acknowledge that we ought to move toward perfection

Which is the whole point of the doctrine of sanctification, is Paul's point in Rom 6:1-2.
Of course, no Reformed person would disagree.

I would submit that God would not wire us with the capacity to delight and take joy in the good, unless He wanted us to exercise our human capacity to become good.

did you forget the Fall of Man, which led to the situation described in Romans 3?

wondering how it is possible to to create a Christian ethical system,

What is morally right and wrong to do? How about basing it on God's commandments?

which does not fit my understanding of a God who is love

Part of your problem is that the Bible reveals a God Who is different than your conception of Him, so you turn to an alternative that He has not revealed. It's difficult to witness.


Peace,
Rhology

And I counter-respond:

Rhology,

Your response was illuminating.

Yes, we do have different views of God, but my view is not the one that’s unbiblical. As I noted in my last post I accept the scriptural testimony that “God is love” (1 John 3:19.) Further, I accept the scriptural idea that love is patient, kind, not jealous, not brooding, doesn’t seek it’s own interest and rejoices with the truth. (1 Cor. 13:5.)

God, in other word, rejoices with his creatures when they discover the truth, which is nothing less than Himself, and He wills the good of his creation.

This biblical understanding of God means that God is not arbitrary or jealous about His undisputed glory. For example, God’s normal mode of operation is to work through others, such as angels or people, thereby sharing with others the “dignity of causation.”

Hence, the biblical view of God is that God is not arbitrary and irrational, but can be known through reason. Not surprisingly, this was the view that informed the Church from its inception.

Ironically, Islam also holds to the idea that God is arbitrary and ultimately unknowable and the Koran, to the best of my knowledge, contains no statement that “God is love.” (1 John 3:19.)

But, of course, you will hold to your own views, but I find it interesting how much you have to sacrifice to hold those views.

I provided numerous texts from New Testament – including Jesus’ statement about the sin of Judas being far greater than the sin of Pilate – which you simply dismiss based upon your “first principles.” Those texts, nonetheless, show that there are sins that do separate a man from God and those that don’t, and that the difference between the two is – not surprisingly – love of God versus love that rejects God.

Christ’s statement about Pilate’s “lesser sin” has to have some meaning, unless you want to affirm that Christ didn’t understand what He was talking about. Since I don’t agree with that, I have to look for the meaning of the statement.

Of course, logically, and as a matter of human experience, I can make sense of Christ saying that a person who betrays the Truth for greed is worse than one who betrays justice out of fear or ignorance. Since Christ was fully human, it is not unreasonable to imply that sense to that passage.

In other words, Pilate’s sin was less than that of Judas because of the extenuating circumstances that Pilate found in himself in. All this means that to understand what Our Lord meant requires that we exercise reason and judgment, and that God recognizes that there are reasons that makes one sin greater or less than another.

What else do we know? Well, we know that even those who build upon the foundation of Christ will be held accountable for their less than perfect actions. In that regard, your response to 1 Cor 3:1- 15 was perplexing. Whatever 1 Cor. 3:10-15 has to do with Purgatory, it definitely establishes that even the saved will be tested and those who have done acts that is less than that commanded by the 10 Commandments will suffer loss although they are still saved.

I agree that 1 Cor 3:15 is not about justification; it really is about sanctification. That was Father Stravinska’s point, and it does make a hash of the notion that Christ’s saving work on the Cross means that the Elect will suffer no loss whatsoever when they “sin.” (Also, 1 Cor. 3:110-15 suggests that there will be works which will not be burned up, which suggests that it is possible to abide by the commandments.)

Since 1 Cor. 3:15 is about sanctification that brings us back to my point about how God has made us capable of working toward our own sanctification.

My question here is do you believe that no part of your sanctification involves your human efforts and works?

If you answer that you do not think that your efforts can lead in the direction of sanctification, then you have tossed out any basis for a Christian ethics. Ethics involves moral human actions. Moral human actions can be possible only if a person can make a free, reasoned and effective choice; anything less and you have the mechanics of robots and not any kind of human morality.

Your response about deriving a Christian ethics from the Commandments is illogical based on your starting principles. If the Commandments are impossible to keep, then why (a) why bother? and (b) why distinguish between someone who wants to keep the Commandments and one who doesn’t? They both end up in the same place. Further, if all breaches of the Commandments are morally identical, then why should anyone distinguish between murder and the occasional swear-word in traffic?

Honestly, that concern has been my primary objection to the theology of the Reformation.

Perhaps you can provide further illumination.