"Based solidly on" is in the eye of the beholder.
There was no change at the "customer level," for nothing of the sort was offered to the faithful until within the last 50-75 years.
If the improvement were based solidly on
previous teachings, why was "salvation through faith, not by works" (
Ephesians 2:8-9) not promulgated to the faithful much sooner?
This is not a bad commentary and question. "Based solidly" refers to the actual teachings of the church, regardless of the beholder. At the customer level those teachings may or may not be promulgated as well as they should be, or practiced by the “promulgators” themselves so well either. Different eras have varied in that respect. Added to that is the fact that Catholicism became such a cultural phenomenon that one became Catholic by birthright alone, together with their baptism at infancy. While most were also catechized, that didn’t mean that being Catholic would necessarily mean little more than wearing the name and mechanically practicing the basics of the faith at most. Not the kind of stuff that Christian martyrs are made of, to say the least. This kind of merely practical and all-too-human legalistic approach is a trap that Protestantism hasn’t been immune to either.
So, I’ve studied Reformed theology a bit to try to understand their concepts of regeneration, justification and sanctification. It appears that regeneration is the beginning, consisting of rebirth- a new life of/in God. It’s Gods elective decree and work of grace that precedes justification and sanctification in order, and changes our disposition such that we’ll turn towards Him. Justification is strictly a forensic declaration of righteousness in response to faith while sanctification is a process of transformation whereby God makes us actually holy, conforming us to His image. Justification and sanctification are insistently kept separate-one is saved strictly by being declared or imputed to be just, not by being made actually just/righteous/sanctified. Righteousness is not at all a requirement or obligation for man in order to be justified and saved even though it
will and must most definitely be accomplished in the elect as they’re sanctified. Related to this it’s interesting to me that William Perkins, a prolific 16th century Calvinist writer, had this to say:
“Though justification be before in nature, yet they are wrought at the same time. For when God accepts a man’s person, then he is made just, who is also sanctified.”
This is interesting because it means that, regardless of whether or not actual holiness is required of man in order to be just in the eyes of God, Calvinism nonetheless acknowledges that the elect can and
will be made holy- that seed is planted and the process begun-at the same moment as justification. Calvinism also maintains that said holiness, while ensured, is nonetheless necessary in order for us to see God (Heb 12:6), to gain eternal life (Rom 6:21, 8:12-13)
Calvin insisted on the necessity of grace from beginning to end, and was much influenced and supported by Augustine who argued for the absolute necessity of grace in order to turn man to God and be saved in his arguments against Pelagianism, during that controversy.
And, interestingly enough, the Catholic church’s doctrine of the absolute necessity of grace in order to turn man to God and be saved is essentially the same, dating back centuries ago, and supported in official Church teachings largely with those same arguments against Pelagianism. The main difference involves the
will of man, where, in Catholic teaching,
grace is resistible; man cannot possibly say “yes” to God without grace, but he can still say “no” at any point. He can refuse to open the door when God knocks, or he can close the door, turning back away from Him at any point later, after being justified. And in order to be just in the eyes of God
He must…make us actually just. Then our justice, our righteousness: our faith, hope, and, most importantly, our love will grow and become stronger and surer as we remain in Him and He in us. In Catholicism it begins with faith in response to grace. God draws and prompts and appeals to and moves us, but won’t overwhelm or totally change our wills or dispositions towards Him, because He
wants our wills involved, however weakly at first. He wants us to
own the justice/righteousness/holiness/sanctity/love because unless we
do we won’t ever
have any, in truth. That justice, that love, while a gift is also necessarily a choice. And this growth necessarily involves struggle-against sin. And
then He judges us- at the end of the day, on what we’ve done with whatever we’ve been given. Absolute assurance of eternal security or OSAS was unanimously denied by the ancient churches east and west along with the ECFs.
Then, for us simple folk, with even
simpler folk yet in ages past in regard to education and literacy, there are the sacraments, or “mysteries” as the east calls them, the act and operation of grace within a believer’s life through which he can understand and live out the basics of the faith. Christian theology is “built into” them.
Baptism, known as “the sacrament of faith”, is that point where God forgives, washes, cleanses, and makes us new creations as we turn to Him in faith and witness to it with that first formal, public profession. Also in this case the early churches and ECFs unanimously possessed no other understanding while, as with OSAS, Sola Scriptura adherents argue between
themselves over these matters.
Baptism unites us with God, the reason Jesus came, while the
Eucharist acknowledges our continuous need for remaining in that union as we partake of Him while examining our worthiness prior to doing so (1 Cor 11:28). While acknowledging that we’re never worthy in the absolute sense by declaring, “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed”, we also know that there are sins that are so grave and opposed to love of God and neighbor that we can alienate ourselves from Him all over again by persistence in them, as Scripture attests. And that leads us to a third sacrament.
Confession/Reconciliation provides that means by which a believer, with a sincere change of heart and Godly sorrow and repentance, can return to the fold if he’s strayed, if he’s compromised and lost his state of just by living
unjustly, now desiring and embracing and realizing God’s forgiveness and mercy, not merely taking for granted that it’s automatically applied but knowing that we must turn back, responding to His ever-present grace, and be reconciled and healed anew.
Again, any of this can be abused and done mechanically, legalistically, insincerely, but that doesn’t mean it cannot be done authentically as well, as can happen with any approach to our faith. It’s those who take the ball, the grace, and run with it who please God, as do the teachers who truly know the faith, and teach it well.
Actually that is salvation.
Justification because of faith is simply a
declaration by the Judge of "not guilty," a
sentence of acquittal of guilt,
and an imputed righteousness (
Romans 4:1-11), just as it was with Abraham.
Alright, so acquittal does not involve the forgiveness and remission of sin. Not sure how that would work but,
ok....??