Salvation from the Catholic View Compared to the Eastern Orthodox View

[fhansen]

"free-will is a nonentity, a thing consisting of name alone"
- Martin Luther

"The will of man without the grace of God is not free at all, but is the permanent prisoner and bondslave of evil since it cannot turn itself to good."
- Martin Luther

"All the passages in the Holy Scriptures that mention assistance are they that do away with "free-will", and these are countless ... For grace is needed, and the help of grace is given, because "free-will" can do nothing."
- Martin Luther

"We are all sinners by nature, therefore we are held under the yoke of sin . But if the whole man is subject to the dominion of sin , surely the will , which is it's principal seat , must be bound with the closest of chains. And indeed if divine grace were preceded by any will of ours, Paul could not have said that,"it is God that worketh in us to will and to do ' (Phil. 2:13)
- John Calvin

"Before the fall, man had been created with a free will, so that, had he been willing, he might have kept the law; his nature was pure; the disease of sin had not yet reached him... But having desired to be as God, he died - and not he alone, but all his posterity. Since then in Adam all men are dead, no one can recall them to life, until the Spirit, which is God himself, raises them from the dead."
- Ulrich Zwingli

"Free will I have often heard of, but I have never seen it. I have always met with will, and plenty of it, but it has either been led captive by sin or held in the blessed bonds of grace."
- C. H. Spurgeon

Spurgeon might be the last I'd trust out of that bunch but either way the Reformers were what we call, wrong, on many points, this one included. I'd defer more to Erasmus on this matter-much more credible.

 

[David Lamb]

Spurgeon might be the last I'd trust out of that bunch

What in particular about C. H. Spurgeon makes you say that he might be the last out of "that bunch" you'd trust?

 

[dzheremi]

OP: Asks about differences between Catholics and EO.
Thread: Protestants and Catholics argue amongst themselves.

Oh, CF...never change!

 

[o_mlly]

Please, explain the fall for me and how it affected all of us? Thanks in advance.

Augustine tells us that human nature changed as a result of the Fall, was corrupted by it, and is now inclined to sin.

But what was the nature during the Fall? It seems to me that human nature must have been open to sin during the Fall. If corruption is the effect of the Fall, the Original Sin, then Augustine’s doctrine must hold that sin is both the cause and the effect of our fallen nature; but an effect cannot be its own cause. Therefore, only the potential of corruption (freewill) preceded the sin.

The potential for sin was antecedent, incident and subsequent to the Fall and remains so. However, once the potential was actualized in the Original Sin, human nature changed and subsequently, became inclined to sin.

What difference does Christ make? St. Thomas raised the basic question: What does Christ mean to a world made by God in perfect order and disrupted by original sin? All the Summa attempts to answer that question, an answer that has been satisfactory for centuries: Christ has restored the original order of the world.

I agree with the poster who noted that we have left the OP's question and should desist in this exchange. I trust you agree.

 

[ladodgers6]

Spurgeon might be the last I'd trust out of that bunch but either way the Reformers were what we call, wrong, on many points, this one included. I'd defer more to Erasmus on this matter-much more credible.

Erasmus really? Interesting, Erasmus was dismantled by Luther, his book Bondage of the Will is a must read for everyone. And St. Augustine debate with Pelagius on Free-Will is another debate everyone should research and learn from.

Augustine tells us that human nature changed as a result of the Fall, was corrupted by it, and is now inclined to sin.

But what was the nature during the Fall? It seems to me that human nature must have been open to sin during the Fall. If corruption is the effect of the Fall, the Original Sin, then Augustine’s doctrine must hold that sin is both the cause and the effect of our fallen nature; but an effect cannot be its own cause. Therefore, only the potential of corruption (freewill) preceded the sin.

The potential for sin was antecedent, incident and subsequent to the Fall and remains so. However, once the potential was actualized in the Original Sin, human nature changed and subsequently, became inclined to sin.

Understand that God entered a Covenant of Works with Adam conditioned upon Adam obeying the stipulations of the Covenant and receiving blessings & rewards, but if this Covenant is breached with disobedience, sanctions of exile and curses will be executed. By God and Adam entering this Covenant bilaterally Adam did possess the libertarian free-will to choose either to obey or disobey without compulsion. He possessed free-will of power of contrary choice.​

What difference does Christ make? St. Thomas raised the basic question: What does Christ mean to a world made by God in perfect order and disrupted by original sin? All the Summa attempts to answer that question, an answer that has been satisfactory for centuries: Christ has restored the original order of the world.

I agree with the poster who noted that we have left the OP's question and should desist in this exchange. I trust you agree.

Read Romans 5:12-21.

 

[fhansen]

What in particular about C. H. Spurgeon makes you say that he might be the last out of "that bunch" you'd trust?

I have to apologize and retract that statement. I had first misidentified Mr spurgeon with someone else. But after reading more about him again I remembered that I had appreciated his faith even though I disagreed with parts of his teachings. He was a good man.

And I would echo his own thoughts during a sermon later in his life while redirecting those sentiments back to himself and like-minded folks:

“I have been struck lately, in reading works by some writers who belong to the Romish Church, with the marvelous love which they have towards the Lord Jesus Christ."

"I did think, at one time, that it could not be possible for any to be saved in that church, but, often, after I have risen from reading the books of those holy men and have felt myself to be quite a dwarf by their side, I have said, ‘Yes, despite their errors, these men must have been taught of the Holy Spirit."

 

[fhansen]

Erasmus really? Interesting, Erasmus was dismantled by Luther, his book Bondage of the Will is a must read for everyone. And St. Augustine debate with Pelagius on Free-Will is another debate everyone should research and learn from.

And I've read both. Erasmus demolished Luther; he just did it in a kinder, gentler, far more scholarly and less obnoxious way. But the best way to understand him and his uncompromising defense of the Christian faith is by reading his work, On Free Will.

Augustine's arguments against Pelagianism were used to formulate church teachings some 15 centuries ago on the absolute essential need for grace in order to turn a man to God. But even with that, Augustine was no Calvinist.

 

[ladodgers6]

And I've read both. Erasmus demolished Luther;

No Sir, Erasmus laid the egg that Luther hatch on Justification by Faith Alone. Furthermore, Erasmus was decidedly against doctrine and dogmas.To him, Christianity was an ethical affair. It meant being transformed in the heart to be a better person like Christ himself. He writes,

“This kind of philosophy is situated more truly in the emotions than in syllogism, it is a life rather than a disputation, an afflatus rather than erudition, a transformation rather than reason. To be learned is the lot of only a few; but no one is unable to be a Christian, no one is unable to be pious, and I add this boldly, no one is unable to be a theologian. For that which is most of all in accordance with the nature descends easily into the minds of all. But what else is the philosophy of Christ, which he himself calls a rebirth, than the instauration of a well-founded nature?”​

That might sound like something Luther would write, but these men and their ideas could not be farther apart. There is nothing here of the doctrine of justification by grace through faith. If anything, it rewords the corrupted doctrine of justification that rests on an individual’s reparation of nature through works, in eloquent yet undogmatic language.

For all his desire to see changes within the church, Erasmus still held tight to the prevailing errors of his day: the dignity of man and salvation that comes from cooperating with God’s grace by works. His loyalties to error and his great distaste for any sort of conflict in the church finally drove him to writes his Diatribe against Luther.


Erasmus refused to let the Scriptures speak clearly on doctrine, especially that of man’s bound will that cannot choose God and godliness. Erasmus writes,

“There are some things which God has willed that we should contemplate, as we venerate himself, in mystic silence; and, moreover, there are many passages in the sacred volumes about which many commentators have made guesses, but no one has finally cleared up their obscurity: as the distinction between the divine persons, the conjunction of the divine and human nature in Christ, the unforgivable sin; yet there are others things which God has willed to be most plainly evident and such are the precepts for the good life.”

This short list of “obscurities” are telling. They have everything to do with what we confess clearly in the creed and hold to by faith. Undogmatic indeed! Erasmus only has eyes and ears for the law, the precepts “for the good life”, as he calls it. What might be gleaned from the Scriptures about God’s work in the person of Christ and the faith that clings to his Word are nothing but fodder for “mystic silence.”

Luther refuses to concede the Scriptures as a book full of confused articles of doctrine. He desires clear and unequivocal assertions, assertions about the person and work of Christ, faith, and the inability of man to choose or work toward his salvation. Luther says in his response to Erasmus, On the Bondage of the Will, “The Holy Spirit is no Skeptic, and it is not doubts or mere opinions that he has written on our hearts, but assertions more sure and certain than life itself and all experience.”[v]

If you want to get to the heart of the conflict between Erasmus and Luther on the issues of faith, works, bound will, God’s foreknowledge, or anything else, then you must see the foundation upon which both men stand. Erasmus was indeed a biblical scholar, but he so detested conflict that he refused to let the Scriptures speak for themselves. For all his love of eloquence, the Bible’s clarity meant little. His “Philosophy of Christ” was based on nothing more than what most people today would call “religion”: an inarticulate preoccupation with being a good person. On this point, we would do well to recognize that Erasmus’ humanist legacy has overcome the Reformation in the judgments of individualistic modern western society. In that sense, Erasmus was a man ahead of his time. Luther’s love of theology and doctrine may have lost popularity, but that does not make him wrong. Despite the upheaval around him in the world, Luther fought because he knew that Jesus would not share his glory with our works. He desired the greater peace and unity not of this world, but of faith in Christ.

The Holy Ghost is no more a skeptic today as he was five hundred years ago. He asserts. He gives the Law not as a ladder to reach God (Ps. 143:2; Rom. 3:10), but to expose our weakness and sin (Rom. 3:20). He speaks the mercy and kindness of God as nothing earned, but as a free gift that we have for Christ’s sake (Rom. 3:22-25). The Lord does not mumble these truths in a corner. The Scriptures are meant to be asserted in preaching. The Scriptures teach that Christ, God’s true Son, died for you. This is a doctrine that demands and requires faith.

As heirs of the Reformation, we should not shy away from assertions and dogma, nor should we ignore the philological tools of the humanists that allow a clear reading of the Scriptures. Like our fathers in the faith we must hold to Christ’s teachings plainly set forth in the Bible. Our redemption is found nowhere else. Luther says,

“Neither you nor I could ever know anything about Christ, or believe in him and receive him as Lord, unless these were offered to us and bestowed on our hearts through the preaching of the gospel by the Holy Spirit. The work is finished and complete; Christ has acquired and won the treasure for us by his sufferings, death, and resurrection, etc. But if the work remained hidden so that no one knew of it, it would have been all in vain, all lost. In order that this treasure might not remain buried but be put to use and enjoyed, God has caused the Word to be published and proclaimed, in which he has given the Holy Spirit to offer and apply to us this treasure, this redemption.”​

 

[fhansen]

No Sir, Erasmus laid the egg that Luther hatch on Justification by Faith Alone. Furthermore, Erasmus was decidedly against doctrine and dogmas.To him, Christianity was an ethical affair. It meant being transformed in the heart to be a better person like Christ himself. He writes,

“This kind of philosophy is situated more truly in the emotions than in syllogism, it is a life rather than a disputation, an afflatus rather than erudition, a transformation rather than reason. To be learned is the lot of only a few; but no one is unable to be a Christian, no one is unable to be pious, and I add this boldly, no one is unable to be a theologian. For that which is most of all in accordance with the nature descends easily into the minds of all. But what else is the philosophy of Christ, which he himself calls a rebirth, than the instauration of a well-founded nature?”​

That might sound like something Luther would write, but these men and their ideas could not be farther apart. There is nothing here of the doctrine of justification by grace through faith. If anything, it rewords the corrupted doctrine of justification that rests on an individual’s reparation of nature through works, in eloquent yet undogmatic language.

For all his desire to see changes within the church, Erasmus still held tight to the prevailing errors of his day: the dignity of man and salvation that comes from cooperating with God’s grace by works. His loyalties to error and his great distaste for any sort of conflict in the church finally drove him to writes his Diatribe against Luther.


Erasmus refused to let the Scriptures speak clearly on doctrine, especially that of man’s bound will that cannot choose God and godliness. Erasmus writes,

“There are some things which God has willed that we should contemplate, as we venerate himself, in mystic silence; and, moreover, there are many passages in the sacred volumes about which many commentators have made guesses, but no one has finally cleared up their obscurity: as the distinction between the divine persons, the conjunction of the divine and human nature in Christ, the unforgivable sin; yet there are others things which God has willed to be most plainly evident and such are the precepts for the good life.”

This short list of “obscurities” are telling. They have everything to do with what we confess clearly in the creed and hold to by faith. Undogmatic indeed! Erasmus only has eyes and ears for the law, the precepts “for the good life”, as he calls it. What might be gleaned from the Scriptures about God’s work in the person of Christ and the faith that clings to his Word are nothing but fodder for “mystic silence.”

Luther refuses to concede the Scriptures as a book full of confused articles of doctrine. He desires clear and unequivocal assertions, assertions about the person and work of Christ, faith, and the inability of man to choose or work toward his salvation. Luther says in his response to Erasmus, On the Bondage of the Will, “The Holy Spirit is no Skeptic, and it is not doubts or mere opinions that he has written on our hearts, but assertions more sure and certain than life itself and all experience.”[v]

If you want to get to the heart of the conflict between Erasmus and Luther on the issues of faith, works, bound will, God’s foreknowledge, or anything else, then you must see the foundation upon which both men stand. Erasmus was indeed a biblical scholar, but he so detested conflict that he refused to let the Scriptures speak for themselves. For all his love of eloquence, the Bible’s clarity meant little. His “Philosophy of Christ” was based on nothing more than what most people today would call “religion”: an inarticulate preoccupation with being a good person. On this point, we would do well to recognize that Erasmus’ humanist legacy has overcome the Reformation in the judgments of individualistic modern western society. In that sense, Erasmus was a man ahead of his time. Luther’s love of theology and doctrine may have lost popularity, but that does not make him wrong. Despite the upheaval around him in the world, Luther fought because he knew that Jesus would not share his glory with our works. He desired the greater peace and unity not of this world, but of faith in Christ.

The Holy Ghost is no more a skeptic today as he was five hundred years ago. He asserts. He gives the Law not as a ladder to reach God (Ps. 143:2; Rom. 3:10), but to expose our weakness and sin (Rom. 3:20). He speaks the mercy and kindness of God as nothing earned, but as a free gift that we have for Christ’s sake (Rom. 3:22-25). The Lord does not mumble these truths in a corner. The Scriptures are meant to be asserted in preaching. The Scriptures teach that Christ, God’s true Son, died for you. This is a doctrine that demands and requires faith.

As heirs of the Reformation, we should not shy away from assertions and dogma, nor should we ignore the philological tools of the humanists that allow a clear reading of the Scriptures. Like our fathers in the faith we must hold to Christ’s teachings plainly set forth in the Bible. Our redemption is found nowhere else. Luther says,

“Neither you nor I could ever know anything about Christ, or believe in him and receive him as Lord, unless these were offered to us and bestowed on our hearts through the preaching of the gospel by the Holy Spirit. The work is finished and complete; Christ has acquired and won the treasure for us by his sufferings, death, and resurrection, etc. But if the work remained hidden so that no one knew of it, it would have been all in vain, all lost. In order that this treasure might not remain buried but be put to use and enjoyed, God has caused the Word to be published and proclaimed, in which he has given the Holy Spirit to offer and apply to us this treasure, this redemption.”​

No, nope, not at all. Erasmus got it; Luther didn't. It may sound ever so subtle when reading him but Erasmus understood the faith on the scholarly, doctrinal, dogmatic and heart level. That's the beauty of the man-and he was the consummate Catholic. He reeked of simple honest truth. Luther brashly threw the baby out with the bath water, and hatched a not so solvent egg. Luther really didn't understand. For Erasmus to cave into Luther's desire for him to join the rebellion would've been for Erasmus to turn his back on everything he knew to be right and true; it would’ve been an impossibility for him. Not because he was stuck in some archaic traditionalism, but exactly because he wasn't.

Yes, the law was given as a teacher to convict us of sin, but not so that we can remain in our sins but just the opposite, so that we might, as Augustine put it, be open to grace so that we can overcome sin finally, the right way, God's way. Be open to Him, IOW.
“The law was given that grace might be sought; and grace was given that the law might be fulfilled." (De Spiritu et Littera)

The gospel is not a reprieve from man's obligation to be righteous but is the authentic means to obtaining that very thing. Erasmus understood that the heart of the new covenant was communion with God first of all, apart from whom we can do nothing, but with whom all things are possible.

Luther's love of Scripture didn't prevent him from misinterpreting it, as he, himself worried that many others may do once Scripture became the sole authority for knowing Christian truth. And he was right about that problem.

 

[ladodgers6]

No, nope, not at all. Erasmus got it; Luther didn't.

You keep Erasmus, no problem. I'll keep Luther and Justification by Faith Alone!

 

[David Lamb]

I have to apologize and retract that statement. I had first misidentified Mr spurgeon with someone else. But after reading more about him again I remembered that I had appreciated his faith even though I disagreed with parts of his teachings. He was a good man.

And I would echo his own thoughts during a sermon later in his life while redirecting those sentiments back to himself and like-minded folks:

“I have been struck lately, in reading works by some writers who belong to the Romish Church, with the marvelous love which they have towards the Lord Jesus Christ."

"I did think, at one time, that it could not be possible for any to be saved in that church, but, often, after I have risen from reading the books of those holy men and have felt myself to be quite a dwarf by their side, I have said, ‘Yes, despite their errors, these men must have been taught of the Holy Spirit."

Thank you for the reply. I had been perplexed as to why you would think of him as untrustworthy

 

[fhansen]

You keep Erasmus, no problem. I'll keep Luther and Justification by Faith Alone!

And yet faith alone is not really the problem. It has more to do with what faith means, what it does, it's purpose. Faith is to come to know God through the revelation of His Son and to accept Him as God. As such faith is to enter union, solidarity, alignment with, and subjugation to, Him. And that union is the very essence of our righteousness which flows as sap does to the branches from the Vine. IOW, God doesn't merely impute or declare us to be righteous but works righteousness within us. He, alone, can justify the ungodly, He puts his law in our minds and writes it on our hearts, without our regard to the law.

It's an act of the will because it was an act of the will that originally caused our un-subjugated state, our unrighteousness, our fall from truth. So it's an act of the will that brings us back to subjugation and righteousness, however clumsy and weak and in need of grace that act is. So God acts to solicit that willingness, that yes instead of no, from us while refusing to turn us into puppets or automatons. And we're to grow stronger in that yes and the more we do so, the greater is our justice/righteousness and our likeness to Him. He's a good parent, who knows and wants the very best for us, and guides us to that end.

 

[ladodgers6]

And yet faith alone is not really the problem. It has more to do with what faith means, what it does, it's purpose. Faith is to come to know God through the revelation of His Son and to accept Him as God. As such faith is to enter union, solidarity, alignment with, and subjugation to, Him. And that union is the very essence of our righteousness which flows as sap does to the branches from the Vine. IOW, God doesn't merely impute or declare us to be righteous but works righteousness within us. He, alone, can justify the ungodly, He puts his law in our minds and writes it on our hearts, without our regard to the law.

Thank you for clarifying your paradigm. You start off right, then mingle or conflate Justification with Sanctification. And this is the problem, because now in your position it is no longer grace, but works. In the Reformed Faith we do not deny the good works of the believer, because these good works are not the cause of their Justification but rather the effects or result of it. It's the fruits of the tree that binds to the true vine. But this is the result of Justification through the Faith Alone and not the cause. Here some scripture for you to ponder upon.
​

Romans 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Romans 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works
​

Justified by Faith​

Galatians 2:15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Galatians 2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

Now ask yourself how can God count an ungodly sinner righteous? Only a person who does works through the Law can be counted righteous through deeds, right? So, how can God count the ungodly righteous? I know the answer I want you to seek it out before I give you the answer.

​

It's an act of the will because it was an act of the will that originally caused our un-subjugated state, our unrighteousness, our fall from truth. So it's an act of the will that brings us back to subjugation and righteousness, however clumsy and weak and in need of grace that act is. So God acts to solicit that willingness, that yes instead of no, from us while refusing to turn us into puppets or automatons. And we're to grow stronger in that yes and the more we do so, the greater is our justice/righteousness and our likeness to Him. He's a good parent, who knows and wants the very best for us, and guides us to that end.

How does God solicit the fallen will without violating it? If no one can be saved without Grace in the first place, how are sinners saved? Is it an illumination of the mind and heart? Are they partially regenerated and placed somewhere between Life and death to make a decision? And why do some accept while other reject God if they come to saving knowledge of the Lord?

 

[fhansen]

Thank you for clarifying your paradigm. You start off right, then mingle or conflate Justification with Sanctification.

Actually justification and sanctification were "deconflated" by some, several centuries back. Here's a teaching from a modern catechism, still carrying the Christian torch:

1989 The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus' proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."38 Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.39

The trouble with Sola Fide is that it places a wedge or disconnect between being righteous and being righteous. I mean, it allows one to be righteous without being righteous, no change in or obligation for us, which is just what satan and the old man prefer anyway!! Right??

But this was never the understanding of the Christian faith. Faith is to become engaged in the life of God. Justification means a turning from sin and a turning to Him. Our sins are forgiven, we are washed, cleansed, and made new creations with a new spirit and a new heart. Faith is a matter of justice, the first right thing for a man to do, and, along with hope and love, is considered to be a supernatural gift of virtue.

Prompted and moved by grace, as we accept and embrace these gifts, their justice/righteousness unfolds and grows in our lives and produces good fruit. If you read the letter to the Romans in the light of righteousness being a gift given then the whole New Testament comes into clearer focus. Faith, IOW, as the foundation is ultimately meant to produce the actual righteousness that results in eternal life.

The idea that faith automatically results in all sins past present and future being carte blanc forgiven without regard to how we live our lives (or the idea that believers will somehow robotically live righteously no matter what so all bases are covered) is a novelty as far as any accepted past understanding and teachings are concerned, along with scripture. Either way, at the end of our lives we will give an account for what we did with the grace, with the gifts, given.

 

[ladodgers6]

Will you address my questions and passages that I have quoted? Because you face a serious problem. So, how you explain these passages that contradict your position. Please address directly without avoiding them, thanks.

Romans 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works

Now take note what Paul saying here. Who does God count righteous? Is it godly or the ungodly? How are the ungodly counted as righteousness? Do these ungodly sinners work or do not work for righteousness?

Romans 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

What does Paul mean here, one is justified by Faith? Why by Faith?

​

Justified by Faith​

Galatians 2:15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Please by all means, explain these passages for me.

Phil 3:9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith

What is the righteousness from God?

Once you answer these questions, I'll explain and share the free gift of righteousness that is proclaimed through the Gospel.​

 

[fhansen]

Now take note what Paul saying here. Who does God count righteous? Is it godly or the ungodly? How are the ungodly counted as righteousness? Do these ungodly sinners work or do not work for righteousness?

I did answer it, but I'll try in a different way. Only God can justify, can make right, the ungodly. To be under the law is to attempt to be godly on my own, apart from God, the way I start out in this fallen world. The New Covenant is all about coming back into union with God first before all else, a state within which we can become the people He created us to be beginning with the first right and just act of faith, which from our perspective establishes or makes real that union.

In Matt 5, when Jesus taught about the interior person, the heart, needing to be right first of all or in Matt 23 when he taught about the Pharisees needing to clean the inside first in order for the outside to be clean, He was talking about the same thing. Mere external works of the law, whether the removal of a little piece of flesh from the body or obedience of the commandments, count for nothing; they do not make us holy. Does this mean that Jesus is telling us to give up on being righteous? Heck no! In fact, He tells us that our righteousness must surpass that of the Pharisees and teachers of the law. But this is relatively easy with the Spirit indwelling! And that state of justice/righteousness, which man was made for, is exactly what the Pharisees were lacking. And that's why faith pleases God so immensely, because it places man back into a right state of being, of alignment with His will, that Adam had opted out of and that we're lost, sick, dead without. That's why He declared Abraham to be righteous by his faith. Abraham was truly one of His people.

“I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord. Jer 31:33-34

Paul echoes this in Phil 3 where he counts his excellence at fulfilling the law as a Pharisee as garbage and goes on to tell us about a different righteousness.

"....not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith."

So the question is not about whether or not the gift of righteousness is free; it's about what the gift of righteousness, justification, consists of. Is it a merely declared righteousness where we're not held accountable for future sin, or is it a real, actual one, that we're held accountable for walking in by remaining in Him?

I'll ask you another question, can a believer persistently, wantonly, commit grave sin and still make it into heaven? Once you answer these questions, I'll explain and share the free gift of righteousness that is proclaimed through the Gospel.

 

[ladodgers6]

I did answer it, but I'll try in a different way. Only God can justify, can make right, the ungodly. To be under the law is to attempt to be godly on my own, apart from God, the way I start out in this fallen world. The New Covenant is all about coming back into union with God first before all else, a state within which we can become the people He created us to be beginning with the first right and just act of faith, which from our perspective establishes or makes real that union.

I read this entire post, and you are either confused, ignorant or in denial of Christ's mediatorial work that is active and passive (Sorry, I do not mean to offend you). But you haven't answered my questions or the passages I have quoted. It seems like you are just dodging them because they present a problem for you.

The question to be asked and answered here, is how can God be just in justifying the ungodly? Only Holy men who keep all things written in the book of the Law will be counted righteous before God. So, before God can declared someone justified, they have to possess righteousness their works of the Law.

Furthermore in Proverbs "He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord" (Proverbs 17:15).

So, here in Proverbs we both face questions that need answers, an innocent man is condemned to death (Christ) and the wicked justified (Ungodly). Before I share the Reformed position on this, can you share your view on it. Hopefully you'll get what the issue is here, between the Reformers and Catholics. Thanks.
​

In Matt 5, when Jesus taught about the interior person, the heart, needing to be right first of all or in Matt 23 when he taught about the Pharisees needing to clean the inside first in order for the outside to be clean, He was talking about the same thing. Mere external works of the law, whether the removal of a little piece of flesh from the body or obedience of the commandments, count for nothing; they do not make us holy. Does this mean that Jesus is telling us to give up on being righteous? Heck no! In fact, He tells us that our righteousness must surpass that of the Pharisees and teachers of the law. But this is relatively easy with the Spirit indwelling! And that state of justice/righteousness, which man was made for, is exactly what the Pharisees were lacking. And that's why faith pleases God so immensely, because it places man back into a right state of being, of alignment with His will, that Adam had opted out of and that we're lost, sick, dead without. That's why He declared Abraham to be righteous by his faith. Abraham was truly one of His people.

“I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord. Jer 31:33-34

Paul echoes this in Phil 3 where he counts his excellence at fulfilling the law as a Pharisee as garbage and goes on to tell us about a different righteousness.

"....not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith."

So the question is not about whether or not the gift of righteousness is free; it's about what the gift of righteousness, justification, consists of. Is it a merely declared righteousness where we're not held accountable for future sin, or is it a real, actual one, that we're held accountable for walking in by remaining in Him?

I'll ask you another question, can a believer persistently, wantonly, commit grave sin and still make it into heaven? Once you answer these questions, I'll explain and share the free gift of righteousness that is proclaimed through the Gospel.

 

[fhansen]

Furthermore in Proverbs "He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord" (Proverbs 17:15).

So, here in Proverbs we both face questions that need answers, an innocent man is condemned to death (Christ) and the wicked justified (Ungodly). Before I share the Reformed position on this, can you share your view on it. Hopefully you'll get what the issue is here, between the Reformers and Catholics. Thanks.

And that's where the difference lies. In Catholic theology the wicked aren't merely acquitted of their wickedness, they're healed of it. Sin isn't merely forgiven, but the believer is transformed into a slave to righteousness. Righteousness isn't merely imputed, it's imparted. The two, forgiveness of sin and being filled with righteousness by the Holy Spirit now indwelling, are inseparable, part and parcel of the new birth. Without that change in us, towards godliness, the justification of the wicked would be an abomination. IOW, in Catholic theology more than an imputation of righteousness occurs: the believer actually becomes righteous. Again, only God can accomplish what the law cannot:

"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify." Rom 3:20-21

This righteousness is a free gift, with real sin (unrighteousness) being replaced with real righteousness:
"For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!"

"For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." Rom 5:17, 19

Sin will still earn one death:
"When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life." Rom 6:20-22

And this points to another crucial difference between Reformed and Catholic positions. All of this is grace from beginning to end, but grace that can be resisted. The faith that pleases God is both a gift, and a choice, as are the works that please Him. The will of man, his participation in God's work, remains involved.

God knows our weakness, our ignorance, our pride that opposes Him. And the cross was the price paid to break through that pride and overcome that opposition. Because by it He demonstrates a love that we can only begin to fathom. It proves that God loves man despite his sin, that He's always had man's best interest at heart while enmity came from man, not Him- and He's willing to pay the price for that sin if it means that we might turn from it, and respond in kind with love just as He's shown His merciful love to us. Again, justification consists of more than the forgiveness of sin but in making man righteous, a righteousness that we must continue to value and to "invest", to express, to walk in. The law cannot do that.

"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin." Rom 3:20

When you can reconcile that verse with the following verses, and the following with each other, all aimed at realizing eternal life, you will better understand the gospel:

"Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose."

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." Eph 2:8-10

"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, He will give eternal life." Rom 2:7

"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom 2:13

"Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord." Heb 12:14

"If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” Matt 19:17

"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God." Rom 8:12-14

"But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." Matt 6:15

 

[fhansen]

How does God solicit the fallen will without violating it? If no one can be saved without Grace in the first place, how are sinners saved? Is it an illumination of the mind and heart? Are they partially regenerated and placed somewhere between Life and death to make a decision? And why do some accept while other reject God if they come to saving knowledge of the Lord?

I just saw this. It's not partial regeneration, it's just what it says. God solicits, by grace, rather than coerces or outright changes. And regeneration is simply begun here, we're in gestation till the end of our lives with the possibility of aborting ourselves and dying all over again.

I believe it was Gregory of Nyssa who said that we're not even truly human beings, who we were created to be, yet in this life. As such, faith is the beginning and foundation of salvation, It's not the end of it which is why salvation is spoken of in past, present, and future terms. We're saved when we're justified because we're made righteous at that point: forgiven, washed, cleansed, and given new hearts and spirits. But since we must participate in God's work throughout our lives, picking up our cross daily, it's a continuous choice; we must continue to walk in that justice, in that righteousness, and grow in it. And He's always there with us, drawing and urging and correcting and moving us ahead, as long as we remain in Him. We can also walk away from it, from Him; we can fail to persevere.

 

[ladodgers6]

And that's where the difference lies. In Catholic theology the wicked aren't merely acquitted of their wickedness, they're healed of it. Sin isn't merely forgiven, but the believer is transformed into a slave to righteousness. Righteousness isn't merely imputed, it's imparted. The two, forgiveness of sin and being filled with righteousness by the Holy Spirit now indwelling, are inseparable, part and parcel of the new birth. Without that change in us, towards godliness, the justification of the wicked would be an abomination.

Sorry for the delay, running errands. Okay, thanks for providing your view on Romans 4:4-5; and Proverbs 17:15. Now, I think you're not really identifying the core dilemma you face here. I was once in your position, and recant that position because of the Amazing Grace that God provides for the ungodly. So, now I will share the Reformed position that sparked the Reformation. Most will say it was the 95 thesis especially with the RCC teaching on indulgences, but it was on how a sinner is justified before a Holy God.

I provided Romans 4:5 where Paul denies works of the ungodly; but you insist it is the ground upon how a sinner is justified. This is the false teaching that the Apostle Paul when in Galatia. Paul not only cursed them, but condemned them that teach this false gospel, that is no gospel at all; basically it's not good news to place sinners under the Law. The Law only condemns sinners, and Paul further says, that all who do not keep all things written in the book of the Law are under the curse of the Law, meaning they stand condemned already.
​

17For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
You only possess half of Christ's Meritorious Mediatorial works. Allow me to explain it, synergism systems; RCC, Arminianism, Semi-Pelagianism, and many more, have restricted it to the merits of His Passive Obedience (The passive obedience of Christ is his suffering, Crucifixion/dying, and substituting himself for the sins of his people. This includes his death on the cross, the consequences of sin on our bodies and relationships, and the consequences of sin on our sins ), as distinguished from that of His Active Obedience (The active obedience of Christ is his perfectly keeping of God's commandments throughout his life. This is also called preceptive obedience),---thereby leaving Justification to rest, partly on His atoning sacrifice, and partly on our personal obedience.

Since you and the RCC deny the imputed righteousness of Christ to the ungodly through Faith Alone apart from works of the Law, all you have left is your personal obedience, that will never reach the standard of God's holiness to fulfill the Law requirements. This is why Christ said, I came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.

And finally it was the imputed Original Sin of Adam that brought condemnation upon all mankind, and One Act of Obedience (Righteousness) by Christ to bring the FREE GIFT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS that is imputed/freely give/credited/counted to the ungodly through Faith Alone apart from any works we do or will do.

Romans 5:17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Romans 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

How can the believer add to the already perfect and sufficient finished work of Christ? This is precisely why there is no boasting by the ungodly or believers in their works. Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.

Isaiah 61:10 I will greatly rejoice in the LORD; my soul shall exult in my God, for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation; he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself like a priest with a beautiful headdress, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.

Therefore, our faith is not Introspective (Subjective), looking inward to see what we can do to save ourselves. Rather, our faith is Extraspective (Extra Nos/Objective), looking outside of ourselves to Christ what accomplished through his Active/Passive Obedience that was finished at the Cross and His Resurrection. We cannot add or subtract from His Meritorious Mediatorial Works for it is finished. And that Sir, is Amazing Grace!

"Thy pains, not mine, O Christ, upon the shameful tree, have paid the law's full price and purchased peace for me."