1. While Reformed theology does not talk about “merit,” it does hold to the third use of the law and thus retains the idea of rewards being given to the Christian. Melanchthon would talk about these rewards under the rubric of the “new obedience.” The difference is that these rewards are only related to sanctification, not justification, which remains sola fide.

2. There are Catholics, like Luther’s mentor Staupitz, who hold to Augustine’s view on predestination and thus embrace monergism. Thus, any talk of “merit” for Staupitz would necessarily follow from the irresistible flow of divine grace in the elect individual. It is possible to read the Catholic Catechism as allowing for that kind of view even while also allowing for a synergistic view as well.

There is more in common than meets the eye.

So??? If he’s right then you should listen to what he’s says, and if he’s wrong then you should explain why.

Unless you want to buy a book which summed up what everyone else has already said on Heaven.

In which case – why did you buy Surprised by Hope in the first place?

“But if we go back through Post 23 (to which this comment responds), we see that T.A.’s use of the word ‘merit’ asserts that merit is based entirely on God’s previously extended grace.”

The grace is God’s but the merit is ours. However, Reformed theology would never permit that dichotomy. Therefore, it’s simply mistaken for “Thomas Aquinas” to equate that with what I said.

He can take issue with my position, but that’s quite different from imputing the formulation of the Catholic catechism to my own formulation, as if they’re interchangeable–when they’re fundamentally at odds.

If someone is a “separated non-brother,” does that mean that person is not a Christian? Just wondering how far the rhetoric has gone already.

“Your reading skills leave much to be desired….I said nothing about a man ‘meriting’ either regeneration or justification.”

But if we go back through Post 23 (to which this comment responds), we see that T.A.’s use of the word “merit” asserts that merit is based entirely on God’s previously extended grace. I think that is what he was relating to the posts by Steve Hays: that every stage of salvation is by grace alone.

P.S. Thomas Aquinas–PLEASE change your post name. Don’t you see what an impossible standard you have set for your own posts? It’s like naming yourself “Albert Einstein.”

“What you have articulated in #22 is boilerplate Catholic catechism.”

Your reading skills leave much to be desired. Of course, I realize that English is not your first language. Perhaps if I’d put it in Medieval Latin or Neapolitan, you would not so badly misunderstand.

I said nothing about a man “meriting” either regeneration or justification.

Badly done, separated non-brother.

What you have articulated in #22 is boilerplate Catholic catechism: “The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.”

Well done, separated brother.

The unregenerate are passive in regeneration, but regeneration creates a predisposition to believe the gospel.

That’s entirely consistent with justification by faith alone, in contrast to justification by works of the law.

If you continue to burn straw men without a fire permit, I’ll have to report you to the authorities.

There’s no way to get around it. Justification is by faith alone, and only agents can have faith (remember, rocks and microwaves can’t), then the act that follows regeneration is an act of an agent. If it’s not, then no one was saved, since non-agents are no-ones.

This is why no one was a monergist until the 16th century. It is implausible since it does not consider the nature of the being saved. Not even Augustine believed it. See Phil Carey’s wonderful analysis of this: http://pontifications.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/augustine-and-the-varieties-of-monergism/

And that’s a good thing. I like it much better when I have a good tune stuck in my mind, then when a bad one gets in there, until I find a good tune again, and it replaces the bad tune.

“in Reformed theology, God monergistically regenerates the elect, the fact that justifying faith is contingent on regeneration doesn’t introduce “cooperation”” -Steve

Amen.

“For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake,”

God grants faith, repentance, and a heart soft and tender, where it was once as hard as granite.