I am curious what the debit/merit paradigm might mean, and the familial/legal?(help?)

wow; if we aren’t synthesizing things exclusive of one another, when we are separating things fused inextricably in this life.
I’m thinking of the Sacraments and the incarnate works respectively.

Thanks for the response. I have heard the mass explained that way. It’s difficult consider that the “once and done” language of Hebrews and all of the other verses (”it is finished/paid in full/tetelestai”, the veil of the temple ripped, etc) is not violated by those catechism entries but …

On the merit issue, there’s a confusion here (no doubt, on my part). There is, no doubt, a large number of passages that use fiduciary language, that is, the language of “debt.” You’ve assumed that is equivalent with “merit.” Sorry. I don’t see it. Not only that, what I do see is that the payment of that debt by Christ is completely unmerited. For even as we were dead in our trespasses and sins, and were by nature children of wrath, God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, (and we only love, because He first loved us) even while we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by God’s favor we are saved so that none should boast) (pardon the redaction).

On another note I’ve been listening to your podcast. I listened to #1, #2, #3, and #10 (it’s just the order they came up in my mp3 player). You do a good job of presenting the material. I’m curious though, #10 deals with celibacy. Paul frequently contrasts two states, both of which he commends. He talks about celibacy vs marriage. Sometimes, virginity and marriage. These two states he talks about frequently. He even goes on to call the forbidding of marriage a doctrine of demons when discussing our liberty. He let’s us know that each state is a gift we are called to.

Now, these two states he honors, and the other two states he forbids. I probably don’t need to point to the number of passages that deal with fornication but YOU quoted 1Co about “conjugal duty” (though I find that sterile sounding translation a bit distant from the idea I get when I read the entire passage in context).

So I hope, given my Puritan (in the original sense, not the modern sense – that is, I find my “conjugal duty” God honoring, not simply a compromise) attitude about sex, you’ll understand why I was aghast at the prospect of priests, married but celibate; a state you mentioned as honorable.

I think, if you really look, you will find more the early penchant for such a state was more influenced by Plato than Paul.

Just for the sake of clarity, we Catholics don’t believe that Christ is “re-crucified” or “re-sacrificed” in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Rather, it is one and the same sacrifice of Golgotha. In the Holy Mass, the sacrifice of Christ re-presented, not repeated. Otherwise, we Catholics would have to cut the Epistle to the Hebrews out from our Bibles. On the contrary, we Catholics read Hebrews during Holy Week and and Good Friday – because it reaffirms what we believe about the Eucharist and Good Friday.

“To be truly covenantal is to be truly Eucharistic” is in the book featured in the upper right bar: “The Catholic Perspective on Paul” which is due out later this year. Please feel free to use it.

Christ’s reference to the jubilee (”to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord” Lk 4:19) refers to the release of debts. Now clearly Christ isn’t preaching that all believers get a free pass on their home mortgage and credit card debts. Rather, He refers to the release of sin in terms of debt.

And don’t forget Matthew 18:

[34] And in anger his lord delivered him to the jailers, till he should pay all his debt.
[35] So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.”

“Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.”

Here again, Christ uses debt language.

Proverbs also teaches that alms for the poor are a “loan to the Lord.” Hence the language of debt is everywhere.

I could go on and on about how Christ teaches that we will receive a “reward” for what we do (e.g. give water to someone or prayer with the door closed).

To reject the language of debt and merit with regard to works means we would have to explain all these passages away. Instead, it’s easier to do these two things:

1) accept covenantalism as establishing the divine economy of salvation
2) accept that the merit system is a filial aspect of belonging to a family based on grace and family identity

However, these options essentially lead to a “check mate” on the side of Catholicism. Hence, opponents must choose one or the other.

Why not choose both…and become fully Catholic?

Yours in Christ,
Taylor

I’ve read much of the Catechism. Parts of it I love (like the things you quote above). Parts of it make me cringe (one thing that comes to mind is the “sacrifice” of the mass being the re-sacrificing of Christ, looking it up 1365 – depending on how you take it, 1366 – worse, but still tolerable in a twisted sense, 1367 – flat out ‘no’, 1368 – which sheds light on the appropriate interpretation of 1367 is flatly denied by several parts of scripture, not the least of which is Heb 7:27).

Though this statement “Hence, to be truly covenantal is to be truly Eucharistic.” is well put my friend. I may use that – unless you have a trademark on it or something

In case we cross posted, I had a question for you above. Not sure if you saw it.

You write:

I see legal, and familial, (or ontological) as incomplete, and since there’s only one place to stand (from which to have a “perspective”) I view these things from the perspective of the covenant – which I think there’s enormous Scriptural warrant for. And I think this puts the familial and legal aspects in their correct context.

Okay, I think I now understand you now. My bad.

I agree with you! You’re closer to the Catholic Church than you may expect. Check this out from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2060 The gift of the commandments and of the Law is part of the covenant God sealed with his own.

The Catholic Church teaches that law falls under covenant.

Here’s another quote from the CCC:

709 The Law, the sign of God’s promise and covenant, ought to have governed the hearts and institutions of that people to whom Abraham’s faith gave birth.

And another one from the CCC:

2801 When we say “Our” Father, we are invoking the new covenant in Jesus Christ.

So here we see that in Catholicism, both the legal and familial elements of the Faith belong within the covenantal framework. The covenant holds the primacy.

This comes to its highest realization in the Holy Eucharist – since Christ only once spoke of the “the covenant” – and that at the institution of the Holy Eucharist.

Hence, to be truly covenantal is to be truly Eucharistic.

Godspeed,
Taylor

You’ve got me wondering:

> I was once close to rejecting the debit/merit paradigm – but I
> came to see that such a rejection actually solved only one
> problem but gave birth to many more problems.

Any hint as to the problems you’re referring to? I don’t see how Christ’s references to the Jubilee year relate. They relate to redemption, sure, but merit, I don’t see it.

The book is in my wish list. I liked the writeup. Of course, if he doesn’t conclude that sin is covenantal unfaithfulness in Judaism then I’m sure it’ll be a worthless read (just kidding)

Thanks
Jim

I interpreted your question as “through what lense/paradigm do you view scripture?” I guess I interpreted your question as a choice between ‘familial’ ‘legal’ OR ‘covenantal’, one to the exclusion of the others.

I see legal, and familial, (or ontological) as incomplete, and since there’s only one place to stand (from which to have a “perspective”) I view these things from the perspective of the covenant – which I think there’s enormous Scriptural warrant for. And I think this puts the familial and legal aspects in their correct context.

You make it sound like I reject any “legal” sense to Scripture but I simply meant that I prefer to stand in the covenant. In other words – like Kline says “not law, covenant.” I doubt you could accuse him of “rejecting the legal context” of the Old/New testament.

Not that I blame you for reaching the conclusion you did. I’m not always (rarely?) clear. My apologies.

I was once close to rejecting the debit/merit paradigm – but I came to see that such a rejection actually solved only one problem but gave birth to many more problems.

There is a fascinating new book that’s getting lots of attention from Protestants and Catholics that I’d recommend. It’s Gary Anderson’s “Sin: A History”. He demonstrates that the primary paradigm for sin in Second Temple Judaism (and the NT) is “sin as debt.” He shows this in Daniel, Proverbs, Qumran documents, etc. It’s unavoidable.

Moreover, Christ quotes passages referring to the Jubilee year – a time of releasing debts – as his message regarding human sin.

I’m really surprised to hear that you as a Christian rejects the legal/familial context of the NT. Wow! I’ve never heard that before. You’re the first!

I don’t know how to respond to that.

in Christ,
Taylor

> So do you personally reject the debit/merit paradigm?

I’m leaning that way.

> Also, are you rejecting or affirming the legal/familial framework?

Yes. My point was that the covenantal framework (esp. of FV) subsumes those positions. Alone, neither provide the full picture but both can be looked at as aspects of a covenantal view.

On ‘grace’ – thanks. It’s funny I never heard it put the way I described, by the way it’s treated in RCism it just seemed to me to be a given. I stand corrected.