Catholic vs. Protestant: Justification

[Catholic Dude]

The key problem is that Justification for Abraham is linked to the status of his soul. In Protestantism justification is specifically not linked to the status of Abraham's soul because his soul is corrupt, that is why an external righteousness is necessary.

Can you please rephrase this, I dont understand.

Protestants believe in something called "imputed righteousness" (also called imputed grace). They understand this to mean that when the moment comes for justification, which is essentially the sinner's conversion to Christianity, instead of God looking at the sinner's unrighteous soul He instead counts the Righteous life of Christ to be judged in place of that sinner. On this basis the sinner takes on a new status "righteous" though in his soul he is still unrighteous.

Protestants teach that AFTER Justification occurs then immediately God begins His work of Sanctification on the unrighteous soul of that justified Christian.

There is a famous analogy, some say Luther came up with it, which accurately describes the Protestant understanding of Justification. Lets say fallen man is a pile of dung, there is nothing righteous about his soul. The only way this pile will be acceptable in God's sight is for something to mask it. The Righteousness of Christ does just that, it comes over the dung like fresh fallen snow and covers it so that it appears pure and fresh. God no longer sees the dung and instead looks at this snow and declares the dung pile to be pure (righteous), though in fact it remains dung underneath.


The famous phrase in Gen 15:6 says "Abraham believed in God and it was credited to him as righteousness". Protestants interpret this to mean that Abraham believed in the OT equivalent to the Gospel at that point (the equivalent to a Christian today trusting in Jesus) and this faith had the Righteousness of Christ stand in place of Abraham's unrighteous soul at God's judgement. Instead of looking at Abraham's unrighteous soul, God accepted the Righteous life of Jesus in Abraham's place and changed Abraham's status to that of "justified" (declared righteous) though Abraham's soul was and remained unrighteous (which Sanctification would come later and make righteous).


Catholics reject this and believe justification means NOT masking the unrighteousness (as Protestants teach), but cleansing the unrighteous soul making it actually clean. In more technical terms, God INFUSES (not imputes) grace into that sinner's unrigtheous soul making it actually righteous.


If you want more information I highly suggest you go back to the start of this thread and read my earliest posts. I have gone over this very issue multiple times in this thread already, hopefully you can get a better idea of what Im trying to get across.

 

[Catholic Dude]

I am not misunderstanding that citation. Your example of Hydrogen and oxygen further confirms what I said. With water, what we have is no longer "hydrogen" and "oxygen" but ONE THING and something new - water.

There is too much going on in this thread already, I will respond to these last few posts of yours once more but then after that I will wait until you start a new thread so that this thread doesnt go off in different directions. I will be happy to discuss them in the new thread if you are that interested.

Now, about your comments above. I dont think you are understanding Catholic theology at all in this regard, you appear to be claiming that the ELEMENTS hydrogen and oxygen are no longer hydrogen and oxygen but a third new ELEMENT. That is incorrect. In a COMPOUND two or more ELEMENTS come together, but they dont CEASE to be elements. In the case of them coming together to form water, that water is not a new ELEMENT. They hydrogen and oxygen are still distinguishable and still able to be separated (which is what occurs at death).

Take a look at Mat 23 which is Christ's very long-winded scathing indictment of the Phariseees. Given that passage, you want me to entertain seriously the notion that Christ's speeches are limited to believers?

You would probably reply, "It may have been addressed to both." But I do not agree that every statement is necessarily addressed to both. It may be that some statements target believers, and some target unbelievers. The Bible simply isn't 100% clear as to the target audience for each and every statement that Christ made.

I was specifically talking about Mat 5-7, that is why I mentioned it. And I mentioned that the Sermon on the Mount applied first and foremost to Believers. I never intended to imply that Christ never talked to Pharisees or that He didnt talk to mixed crowds.

I’ll say it again. In my view, the mind is tangible, but this tangible substance is distinct from the protoplasm that constitutes the physical brain and the physical heart. Perhaps alluding to angels will clarify this. In my view angels are tangible but don’t even possess protoplasm. Clear? I repeat –for me “tangible” just means “capable of collision with solid objects”. Tangible does not necessarily mean “protoplasm.” I was quite clear on all this.

A "solid object" is physical matter, Angles cant collied with physical matter because they are purely spirit. Your comments dont make sense.

The tongue is a mixture of protoplasm and tangible soul. I was quite clear on this point. And stop reading YOUR theology into what James said. Don’t put words in his mouth. James didn’t say it was an issue of the soul controlling the tongue. That’s what YOU say, not what HE said. James said that the tongue is evil – which means he is either a Manicheean (a heretic) or he held to my view that the tongue is in part the tangible soul. Logically, those are the only two choices you have.

I have never heard of "your view" described by any Protestant or Catholic. Unless you can show me clearly where a respected Protestant theologian describes "your view" I simply cant take it seriously. The body dies, that is stops moving and unable to move, when the soul leaves. Thus any bad talk that comes off the tongue is simply the communication of what the soul wants the tongue (a physical object) to move and vibrate to get that message out in the air.

Let's make the picture more clear. Suppose a muder is committed. The police office says to, "See this knife, it is the murder weapon. What an evil thing this is. It causes all sorts of evil, and causes men to do all sorts of evil. Indeed, it is best we destry it."

You would think him to be pretty much of an idiot, because it is clear that an inanimate object is NOT evil. And yet James made such statements about the tongue. Clearly, this implies that the tongue is not an inanimate object, it is alive, and this is possible only if it is, at least in part, the human soul.

Your example actually fully supports my claim. The murder weapon is evil only so far as the soul caused it to be used for an evil action. The knife itself is not evil, it was USED for evil by the one operating it. Same with the soul animating the body and moving the tongue.

To make it even more abundantly clear that the tongue is not an inanimate object, James lumped it in the category of living creatures. "All manner of [living] beast has been tamed by man", said James, "but no one can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison." Again, consider making such a statement about an inanimate object such as a screwdriver or a knife. This statement simply doesn't make sense for non-living (i.e. non-soulish) objects.

You are reading way too much into what James is saying, he is speaking practically, not philosophically, his epistle is not metaphysics or zoology or anything like that.

This is evidence against the false doctrine of sola scriptura where unheard of interpretations can come out like this out of nowhere. Show me any respected Protestant theologian who believes in your view of these things, I highly doubt there are any.

But I do agree with them that justification is by faith alone.

I think the real problem here is that you don’t understand the slogan. You have been writing in a way that suggests it means “faith-without-works” when in fact it means “faith-that-works.” These works are inspired by grace, and therefore they are not human works. To God be the glory for the works. (I also believe that there is such a thing as human works, but these do not save us). Justification by faith alone also means that the specific quantity of good works, and the specific quantity of sin, is not relevant to salvation. Let me elaborate. Once saved, I am not “more likely” to be saved simply because I did more good works than my fellow Christians. Salvation rests on the cross, so anyone who has some grace (i.e. any Christian) is saved. Once saved, I am not “less likely” to be saved because I sin more than other Christians. Since I agree with all these aspects of justification by faith alone - which are the major aspects of the doctrine - I am warranted in using the slogan.

You didnt mention IMPUTATION even ONCE in this paragraph....how can you say I dont know what Im talking about? I am CLEARLY pointing out this is about Imputation versus Infusion, YOU dont seem to get that. The fact you say things like that justification and sanctification are interchangeable further supports my claims that you dont uderstand the classical protestant situation while I do understand it.

And I am not going on your wild goose chase to find out what Norman Shepherd was criticized for. I really couldn’t care less. I am quite satisified that I understand the major similarities and differences betwixt my theology and that of the Reformation. That’s all I need to know, at the moment. If there’s something else you feel I need to know, make your point and give me a link to back it up.

Here is a short article (one of many online) of a Reformed Protestant critiquing Norman Shepherd:
http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?186
Some articles call him an outright heretic, others say he is borderline heretical and shouldnt be talking the way he does refusing to put faith alone as the instrument which righteousness is imputed and which justification relies on.

Here you don’t seem to be making sense. You seem to suggest that, since regeneration sanctifies us (and let’s even imagine 100% sanctified for the moment), no need for imputed righteousness. Baloney. What about PAST sin? We still need coverage for that, even were we to sin no more. I see nothing odd or confusing about this imputational aspect of Protestantism, indeed I agree fully with it.

Of course there is no need for imputation if your soul is sanctified...you dont seem to be making sense.

I think you are using a couple of terms ambiguously (in the hopes of charging us with contradiction). as a result, my patience is wearing thin. In this case, the word here is “need” (of imputation). In one sense, we will ALWAYS need imputation. There will never be a day in heaven where I can do without it, because without it, I am back to reprobrate status. So there is a sense in which a sanctified person still “needs” imputation. But this isn’t to say that a sanctified person still “needs” imputation (in the sense of needing something not yet given to him). If he is sanctified, then he does indeed have the imputation needed. Thus he both “needs” imputation and doesn’t “need” it, depending on how the word ‘need’ is being used, so please stop using the term ambiguously. This is the Protestant view (and I agree with it).

Im not "hoping to charge you with a contradiction" and Im not using terms "ambiguously". On BOTH charges it is you not using terms according to the classical Protestant understanding. Classical Protestant theology is clear, justification rests on imputed righteousness and on that basis you are accepted as righteous. NOTHING in your soul is the basis for being accepted as righteous in Protestant theology. For you to say that regeneration sanctifies, and even say 100% sanctifies, means that the soul is made righteous at that point. Thus there is no need whatsoever to impute righteousness because the soul is already righteous through regeneration. In the Protestant Ordo Salutis, Regeneration occurs BEFORE justification.

Lets say you had a kitchen garbage can full of smelly garbage. Imputation is equivalent to spraying air freshener all over the garbage so that the odor is masked and that all you smell is fresh mountain breeze air. Regeneration with 100% sanctification is equivalent to emptying the garbage out of the can so that the source of the odor is removed and the odor goes with it. At that point there is NO NEED WHATSOEVER to spray air freshener when the odor and the source of odor are already removed.

BTW, I didn't mean to imply (and I correct myself here if I so stated, although I don't recall doing so) that justification and sanctification are ALWAYS used interchangeably by Paul. On the contrary, I suggested that in Romans Paul uses "justification" principally in the sense of imputation, whereas in Galatians he uses it principally in a sense interchangeable with "sanctification."

This is all the proof I need to show that you dont know the classical Protestant position well enough to accuse me of obfuscating.
No respectable Protestant theologian today would agree with you, they would never say "justification", especially in Galatians, can be used interchangeably with "sanctification". The problems with such a claim are numerous and undermines the classical Protestant idea of justification.
I understand the classical Protestant position well enough to know that what you described does not jive with Justification by Faith Alone as taught by the Reformers or classically minded Protestants.

 

[Catholic Dude]

This is just a common debate tactic. You are stating that the gospel is at stake, and therefore God and His church has failed completely if both the Proestants and the Catholics (and the Orthodox?) got it wrong.

You wont find a single respected Protestant theologian who said what you just said. If the Catholic Church didnt get it right, and the Protestant Reformers didnt get it right, then logically who is there to turn to?

Dude, I think JAl is making a valid point here . . . I don't think you truly represent the reformers well. Everytime you have mentioned something as against the classic protestanism, I have gone back to look at the westminster catachism (which I would consider a pretty good representation of classic protestanism) and have not found your critique to be accuarate. More on this will be convered in my next post.

The fact you are taking JAL's side in drawing your conclusion on what I understand makes me wonder if you understand the classical Protestant position. I assure you, you wont find any respectable Protestant theologian talking the way JAL does, it is simply not in line with classical Protestant theology. He is free to propose his own views on things, but I wont confuse his new views with that of classical Protestantism, especially in the key teaching of imputation.

Read what he just said on how Paul uses justification and sanctification interchangably in his Epistle to the Galatians. Such a comment is unacceptable in the classical Protestant system and I assure you that you wont find a respectable Reformed or Lutheran pastor today making that claim.

I think, by claiming that protestants don't believe in sin because we think that sin doesn't stop god's work of salvation, when we believe that God's work of salvation both redeems us from our sins and sanctifies us to sin less and less, through the holy spirit. This is classical protestanism and in classical protestanism sanctification and justification do overlap, but they are treated as separate terms, because Paul does use them separately enough times to signify that he is making a distinction. Just as the sacrifices of the OT illistrated different aspects of the single continuous act of salvation, so paul uses different terms . . . In Romans and in the previous verse I metioned, these words have distinctive use . . .

They do NOT overlap in the sense sanctification takes place before or during justification. Remember my dirty diaper analogy, there is no need to wrap the dirty diaper in a clean cloth (imputation) if the diaper has already been washed or is washed (sanctification) at that same moment.

 

[Silenus]

The fact you are taking JAL's side in drawing your conclusion on what I understand makes me wonder if you understand the classical Protestant position. I assure you, you wont find any respectable Protestant theologian talking the way JAL does, it is simply not in line with classical Protestant theology. He is free to propose his own views on things, but I wont confuse his new views with that of classical Protestantism, especially in the key teaching of imputation.

In all fairness, it was only one quote of JAL's that I was agreeing with and that quote is in line with westminster, and I quoted it in the post. My agreement isn;t on JAL's theory of justfication that heis coming up with, it is on that quote I posted by him on his summary of the protestant position.

Just to be clear

 

[JAL]

Now, about your comments above. I dont think you are understanding Catholic theology at all in this regard, you appear to be claiming that the ELEMENTS hydrogen and oxygen are no longer hydrogen and oxygen but a third new ELEMENT. That is incorrect. In a COMPOUND two or more ELEMENTS come together, but they dont CEASE to be elements. In the case of them coming together to form water, that water is not a new ELEMENT. They hydrogen and oxygen are still distinguishable and still able to be separated (which is what occurs at death).

Look, what difference does it make, really? Heads I win tails you lose! Why so? Let’s suppose you are right, namely that the integrity of each element is preserved. Thus we have an immaterial mind distinct from a material body. Now we are back to the classic mind-body problem, meaning you cannot explain why, for example, damage to a material device (the brain) impairs the mind’s ability to think rationally. What you need, to get beyond this problem, is a closer union of mind and body, a sort of synthesis of the two into one compound – and you can touch yourself to verify that the compound is tangible – in which case my original point stands. Take your pick – heads I win, tails you lose.

A "solid object" is physical matter, Angles cant collied with physical matter because they are purely spirit. Your comments dont make sense.

Wrong on two accounts. First, a “solid object” doesn’t necessarily have to be MATTER AS WE KNOW IT, meaning that, God is capable of creating tangible objects which do not have electrons orbiting around a nucleus with protons, subject to gravity, nuclear forces, and magnetism. There are presumably plenty more ways to arrange matter, so stop being so narrow minded. It’s naive. Secondly, you are ASSUMING that angels are “spirit,” not BECAUSE of what Scripture teaches, but rather IN SPITE of what Scripture teaches (as Tertullian would be quick to point out). For example, an angel physically pushed away the stone from Christ’s tomb AND THEN SAT ON THE TOMBSTONE. How does an intangible being sit on a rock? How does it push a rock one direction or the other? Doesn’t make sense. The term “spirit” is just an English word – a mistranslation of the Greek. For an introductory discussion of this fact, see another thread of mine:

http://christianforums.com/t6617682-god-is-not-spirit-he-is-flesh-and-blood.html&page=3

The above thread is just a brief introduction to my defense of tangibility. There is a lot more I could have said, and a lot more verses I didn’t bother to mention.

Your example actually fully supports my claim. The murder weapon is evil only so far as the soul caused it to be used for an evil action. The knife itself is not evil, it was USED for evil by the one operating it. Same with the soul animating the body and moving the tongue.

Ok, I am about done here. This looks like dishonest debating. It was precisely my point that James does NOT say the tongue “is used for evil.” He said the tongue is evil. I asked you to stop putting words in James’ mouth, and how do you respond? You add more words to his mouth!

This is evidence against the false doctrine of sola scriptura where unheard of interpretations can come out like this out of nowhere. Show me any respected Protestant theologian who believes in your view of these things, I highly doubt there are any.

I’ve already mentioned Tertuallian. I shall also mention here that the inspiration for ALL my theology is Andrew Murray, one of the most respected Protestant theologians in church history (I’ll cite him on this point in just a moment). More recently, one of the most prominent evangelical theologians of today is Millard J. Erickson who advocates a tangible soul (his Christian Theology is a standard Systematic Theology textbook in seminaries throughout the country).

Andrew Murray wrote the following:

“I can dwell in a house without its becoming part of my being. I may leave it without suffering; no vital union exists between my house and me. It is not thus with the presence of our soul and spirit in our body. The life of a plant lives in and pervades every part of it; and our soul is not limited to dwell in such or such part of the body, the heart or the head, for instance, but penetrates throughout, even to the end of the lowest members. The life of the soul pervades the whole body; the life throughout proves the presence of the soul. It is in like manner that the Holy Ghost comes to dwell in our body. He penetrates its entirety. He animates and possesses us infinitely more than we can imagine.” http://christianforums.com/#_edn1
In Murray’s view, then, the tongue is full of soul.

But frankly, I couldn’t care less if no one at all agreed with me, because know what I found about people? They are almost universally irrational in regard to religion, at least with respect to one or more of their assumptions. I am not looking for agreement. I’m looking to see who violates the law of non-contradiction, versus who doesn’t.

You didnt mention IMPUTATION even ONCE in this paragraph....how can you say I dont know what Im talking about? I am CLEARLY pointing out this is about Imputation versus Infusion, YOU dont seem to get that. The fact you say things like that justification and sanctification are interchangeable further supports my claims that you dont uderstand the classical protestant situation while I do understand it.

Ok, this comment is just stupid. Any third grade reader could have discerned that I IMPLIED imputation because I indicated that a person is saved without resepect to his own works, by virtue of the cross. I was explicit on this point. Again, this looks like dishonest debating.

Andrew Murray, Divine Healing (public domain, from the chapter “Your Body is the Temple of the Holy Ghost”),
http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/

 

[JAL]

Thus there is no need whatsoever to impute righteousness because the soul is already righteous through regeneration. In the Protestant Ordo Salutis, Regeneration occurs BEFORE justification.

Again, that same silly equivocal usage of “need”. WHEN we will ever cease to need imputation? When will I ever cease to need water? Never. Clearly it is you who doesn’t understand Protestantism. Anytime, therefore, you repeat the objection, “In Protestant rebirth I see no need for imputation” I am simply going to remind you that, in the Protestant view, we will ALWAYS need imputation. You just don’t get it, do you?

And as for Ordo Salutis, I already warned you – it’s just a generalized summary of the stages, you can’t seem to grasp this fact. Sigh… Let’s try this one more time, I’m gonna have to spell it out for ya.

Without saving faith, there is no salvation in the Protestant view. Trouble is, the heart is hostile to God. The Spirit therefore does a work in the heart to bring it to believe. Now this isn’t tehnically a “new birth” UNTIL THE WORK IS ACTUALLY COMPLETE. Thus the new birth and justification are temporally simultaneous. However, it is is the faith that justifies. Justification is therefore logically prior to the new birth (sanctification).

They (loosely) call the Spirit’s initial influence, as He begins the process of touching the heart, “a work of regeneration” or “new birth” to emphasize that He begins the work, as opposed to self-initiated faith. But it is NOT UNTILT THE WORK IS COMPLETE that it is technically considered to be a new birth. The new birth (sanctification) doesn’t precede justification. Imputation occurs FIRST (i.e. it is logically prior), though simultaneous with the new birth (temporally). There is nothing illogical about this (if there were, believe me I would have pointed it out, because I sure as heck don’t mind pointing out contradictions in traditional thinking).

You can’t be a child of God until imputation has occurred. Therefore it is not “really” the new birth until the work has completed. The new birth doesn’t precede saving faith, it doesn’t precede imputation. Yes, I will agree, that the process which culminates in the new birth (the initial activity/ influence of the Spirit) does begin before justification, but what you fail to understand is that this initial activity is only LOOSELY called “regeneration” at that point. It isn’t technically a “regeneration” (a new birth) until the believer has indeed, BY VIRTUE OF JUSTIFYING FAITH, been accepted by God as a child.

Protestants expect you to read between the lines. They don’t spell out everything for you, as I just did. If you still don’t get it, I don’t think I can help you.

 

[Catholic Dude]

Let me take the phrases you have pointed out and give them a close reading.

I didnt see you address these verses I mentioned in that same paragraph: Rev 2:4-5; Rev 3:3; and especially Heb 10:26-29.

This in no way contradicts the protestant position. Under Protestantism, good works are the result of the spirit’s influence, and so the one who sows TO THE SPIRIT, works stem from the spirit. From our viewpoint, it is easy to be weary in doing good . . . But, as this scripture points out, it is all due to the spirit.

Here Paul says "do not be deceived", yet according to you true Christians cant be deceived. This passage makes no sense unless Paul is talking to true Christians. He says the one who sows to please the flesh will reap corruption, meaning the Christian who is deceived into thinking their sins wont harm them, Paul says they will reap destruction. Lastly he says they will reap eternal life IF THEY DONT GIVE UP, clearly implying they can turn to lives of sin for the temporary pleasures they provide and not make it to Heaven.

I agree that the bible usually uses the word saved in the present progressive tense (you are being saved) because salvation is linked to sanctification, but I think to say someone who doesn’t get into heaven has been saved is troublesome, more on that in a moment. If you are right, what do calling and election even mean? Especially in the context of verses like

Rom 11:28-29
(28) As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.
(29) For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. This on top of the other verses I quoted before that show god’s faithfulness to the elect.

Catholics would say not everyone who is called also perseveres in their Christian life. 2 Pt 1:9 above supports this showing a person who lacks those good qualities, yet was cleansed of his past sin. If someone was cleasned from his past sin you must admit they were saved, yet you also have to explain how they failed to produce the good works Peter describes. I also said this is part of the mystery of how Gods Providence and Free Will work together.

The end of Romans 11 (11:25-32) is a hard passages because some say it means literally all Jews will be saved in the end based on their favored status given to them because God found favor with their father Abraham. Others say all cant be saved because many of the rejected Christ and rather offer different answers, for example that the Jews living at the time of Christ's return will recognize him and repent.

Paul isn’t talking to unbelievers, he is spurning on those who believe to more good works and he is warning those who have the faith described in James, who ascent but don’t believe, to those who are in the covenant community but who don’t have true faith. That kind of making your calling and election sure makes more sense then to say that you have to do this to stay saved (how one stays saved I still don’t get . . . if you are still in danger, you are not safe, you haven’t been saved from anything). Plus, if the reason I do this work of repentance is because of a gift of god, whether it be Divine timing or Diving intervention through the spirit, then you still have a concept of those who are truly god’s and those who are in the covenant, but not truly god’s. if this is not true, how do you explain those verses I quoted which seem to clearly indicate how God holds those who are His.

Paul is not talking to unbelievers, that is why his warning in say 11:20-22 is so important, he says they as in grafted branches can be cut off.

In places like James 2:1 he addresses the crowd as "believers in our Lord Jesus Christ" and warns them in that same verse not to show favoritism. There is no indication james is talking to unbelievers, quite the contrary in fact.

About the comments about "saved" here and now but not in Heaven (saved in the end), you must admit the Bible talks like this. As for your verses about God preserving this or that individual, I have said that plays into the gift of perseverance which I talked about previously.

Well, a non-conditional covenant stands permanently. God’s favor and blessing were with David permanently. The covenant says David will be punished if he does wrong, but he will not be forsaken.

The promise is an extention of the one of Abraham in which since Abraham pleased God his lineage would have a favored status and produce the messiah. With David this narrowed to the messiah coming from a kingly lineage. What those promises did not mean is that those standing in the way would not be punished, even losing salvation, it means the path God laid out would have faithful witnesses along the way.

As for punished but not forsaken, that concept fits with the gift of perseverance, and that is because it means David could lose his justification through sin, but God would make sure he repented and regained that justification before death.

And, as you said, protestants believe that the ability to seek pardon is a gift of God. An exact statement of how protestants look at things. Can one receive the blessing of god and not be saved? Furthermore, ones relationship with god can be damaged and, yet, not, mean salvation has been lost. They are not mutually bound terms. As the bible says, God can discipline you and you can still be His adopted son.

One can receive gifts from God and not be saved, that is why there are reference to people abusing the gift of faith given to them and falling away (Luke 8:13; 1 Tim 1:19; 2 Cor 6:1; Eze 18:24; etc).

I agree that one can sin and damage their relationship but not cause the loss of salvation, Catholics would call that venial sin, not the "mortal sins" which Catholics would classify as those mentioned in places like Gal 5:19-21 and 1 Jn 3:15 and such.

They aren’t unbelievers in the sense you mean them, they have the faith described in James, a dead faith. They are members of the covenant community who are in sin and are either, going to repent showing their election and calling, or the are going to go apostate, showing that their true inner state.

There is nothing that indicates they were never Christians, in fact the evidence says the contrary.

As for your "dead faith" argument, I say that is a misreading of James, based on the faulty reasoning which basically says God gives "dead faith" as a gift to people. In James 2:1 for example he calls them believers in our Lord Jesus Christ, yet in 2:6 he says they have insulted the poor. This goes right back to the "sin" issue I mentioned previously where you dont believe it was real sin because the ones "insulting the poor" never were Christians but unbelievers while the true believers are not the concern of James 2.

When you combine the verses you quoted with the small sampling of verses (john 6:38-40, john 10:27-29, Eph 1:13-14, Phil 1:6, I peter 1:5, john 8:31-32) it seems the only way to alleviate the tension between Paul’s admonishments and his statements of confidence about the salvation of the elect is through protestant theology. It seem perplexing to me, again, that this baffles you because you have already said that repentance is a gift. If they cannot repent without God, then god did not choose them. And those he justified, he glorified. Again the group justified is the same group glorified

No the specific group mentioned in places like Jn 10 and Rom 8:29 and a few other spots are those saved and given the gift of perseverance. There are others who are saved but do not persevere because they fall into grave sin and dont have the gift of perseverance. There is clear references in John about Christians falling in grave sin and losing salvation (Jn 5:14; 15:6; 12:42-43; 13:8).

No, I don’t think it does. I think it says that people who practice this don’t get into the kingdom. It is a reference to everybody, and if you truly believe this, then David doesn’t get in. . So, there are apparently some people who commit these sins and inherit the kingdom of God. So, already, this verse can’t mean that these sins are mutually exclusive with the kingdom of God, if they are, then David is in hell. He repented and his sins were cleaned. No problem, right. You believe that David repented, and that this repentance is a gift from God, so do Protestants. We seem to be more consistent though, in that we believe when we say repentance is a gift of god, it is really a gift of god. You seem to think it is a gift of god and something I can do on my own without god. Which one is it? These are mutually exclusive sets. What would you call a person who doesn’t repent? An apostate? Did that person have true faith? If so, why didn’t he repent? If you want to have perseverance of the saints, you actually have to have perseverance of the saints.

The key above is that David lost his justification when he fell into that sin BUT REPENTED and restored it before death. That is an astronomical distinction between the Catholic view and your Protestant view which teaches Christians can commit those "sins" yet they wont lose their salvation. Repentance is a gift of God in so far as those Christians who fall into grave sin and get it can repent, those Christians who fall into grave sin and dont get it dont repent in time and are damned.

The Catholic view is far more consistent for it makes sins such as adultery and murder grave sin which Christians are able to commit and must be repented of. In your view, with imputation repentance and perseverance lose their meaning. Think back to the dirty diaper example, with imputation the diaper is covered by a clean cloth, what goes on under that cloth has no effect on how God views the diaper because He sees only the clean cloth.

What I find interesting is that the catholic catechism uses this verse to justify the venial mortal sin distinction, yet many of the sins listed wouldn’t qualify as mortal sins . . . as far as I read in the catechism anyway.

I would like to see where you get the idea many of those sins dont qualify as mortal sins. It mentions adultery, witchcraft, orgies, rage, idolatry, etc. Those are all mortal sins.

Again, this comes from your misinterpretation between an unbeliever and an apostate or unfaithful covenant member. A Christian can commit adultery. And he can repent. So far, there is no scriptural reason for me to think anything has caused me to lose my salvation, especially since my repentance is dependant on God. He’s still saving me when I commit this sin through the gift of repentance. Why doesn’t adultery condemn for Christians because of God’s atonement and the work of the Holy Spriit. Why does it condemn for unbelievers? They arn’t in Christ, they have no atonement, and they are in rebellion.

You prove my point in red. You commit the same sins as unbelievers, yet they get punished with hell if they dont repent from them where as you cant lose your salvation if you commit them. As I already said, to you the world is divided into believers who only have living faith and unbelievers who can only do evil.

Places like Rev 2:20-22 make it clear salvation is on the line if a Christan commits those sins and dont repent of them. Also you didnt address my 1 Tim 5:8 verse.

Reconciled by whom? God? Then how have you fallen from His salvation? If he saves you, then he saves you . . . you still have not, in my eyes, addressed this any differently than a protestant.

You fall from salvation through grave sin. That right there is the key difference between Catholics and Protestants. You dont believe in grave sin in that nothing can cause you to lose salvation. Perseverance means even if that Christian falls into grave sin and loses salvation, God will give them the chance to repent before death to restore the salvation. Some Christians who fall into grave sin get the gift, others do not. This is a very different picture than the Protestant position where you as a Believer could go commit adultery and your status before God would remain unchanged.

Unless it is God who redeems you when you fail . . . Then, you can. This is why Paul talks about making your calling sure, by subjugation to the discipline of the church and the prayerful consideration of your soul to test whether you are deceiving yourself. A catholic, by what you have told me, must say the same thing, that there are people right now who have a faith of assent, but not a true faith.

But you dont believe you can fall, that is the point. Falling means you lost your salvation. As for the making the calling and election sure, the explicit fact is right in the middle of that Peter (2 Pt 1:9) shows someone cleansed of their past sins who is not performing those good works. A person cleansed of their past sins can only be in reference to a Christian.

(cont)

 

[Catholic Dude]

(cont 2 of 2)

From our perspective, of course someone can leave the church and the faith and become apostate, but, as the scripture indicates and from God’s eyes, they were not called or the elect. What other conclusion can be drawn from anyone who believes in a gift of repentance.

Here is another term I regularly come across Protestants using, apostate, yet their definition of it is illogical. You say they became apostate but they were never saved in the first place, that is illogical. It is as absurd and contradictory as me saying I got my car stolen yet I never owned a car. I abandoned the faith, yet I was never a believer. I posted on Christian forums, yet Ive never used a computer.

Apostate clearly and logically means they were a true believer at one point and they turned away (1 Tim 5:11-15). Anything else makes the term of no meaning. In 2 Cor 11:3 Paul is worried that they may turn away from their devotion to Christ.

I have no problem with overlap, I have a problem with a lack of any distinction. Paul is using these words separately, not in a tautological fashion, and so there is some distinction between the use of the terms. In Protestantism with have a viable distinction with overlap, in Catholicism, none, a mere tautology.

It seems to come down to this.

“I am justified and then I receive the Holy Spirit” fits Westminster.

“I am justified through the reception of the holy sprit” also fits the Westminster confessions, as I just read over them.

“I am justified because I received the Holy Spirit”, this I’m not sure works . . . but it might. This seems to be anti-scriptural. The temple must be cleansed and dedicated and sacrifice made before the glory of God can indwell.

You have to explain what "washed" "sanctified" and "justified" mean then as events that took place in the past in those Christian's lives which paul was talking to. In places like Eph 5:26 Paul makes similar comments using the term "sanctify" "cleanse" and "wash" in the same verse.

As far as salvation is concerned, remember that the Holy Spirit is the seal of our salvation (2 Cor 1:21, 22, eph 1: 13, 14) and the thing that guards (I peter 1:5) us in it . . . are you saying the Holy Spirit is a bad guard and a plastic seal? Or can, as it says in the gospels, God hold onto his own so that no one can pluck them out of His hand? Not to be too cheeky, I do appreciate the time you have put into explaining your thoughts.

The Holy Spirit is not a bad guard and nobody can pluck a believer out of God's hand, that is not the same as a believer themself turning away, that is the key. External evils cant remove you from God's love, but you yourself turning away can (1 Cor 3:16-17; Gal 3:3; 6:7-9; etc).


I likewise appreciate you taking the time to talk. This is a very touchy subject and a lot is at stake so it isnt always easy, at least for me, to maintain a good level of charity. I apologize in advance if I made any harsh comments.

 

[Catholic Dude]

JAL,

maybe we have two different meanings of imputation we are using. What is your definition of Imputation? What does it mean and why is it necessary?

 

[Ormly]

Without saving faith, there is no salvation in the Protestant view. Trouble is, the heart is hostile to God. The Spirit therefore does a work in the heart to bring it to believe. Now this isn’t tehnically a “new birth” UNTIL THE WORK IS ACTUALLY COMPLETE. Thus the new birth and justification are temporally simultaneous. However, it is is the faith that justifies. Justification is therefore logically prior to the new birth (sanctification).

In general, JAL, I like what you write, however, you can't support the above assertions. There is no "special" saving faith apart from faith itself. Everyone has faith and places it in something or someone. We were made that way from the beginning. So it is a question of where it is placed that will bring salvation. #2. The heart is not inherrantly hostile to God. Only the wicked can it be said to be so. Not all of us are wicked. #3. Sanctification is what the new birth is for. Sanctification is an impartation and comes into us as we learn the Character of the Father. The new birth being the imputation of His Nature that enables us to do so..

 

[JAL]

CatholicDue, you pointed to me an article which critiques Norman Shephered. Let me say that one thing I hate about Christians in general, and particularly about Reformed thinkers, is that many of them, in pretense of “preserving the gospel”, will split theological hairs, and even grossly mispresent others, in an effort to crucify someone's theology (it makes them feel important to serve as “watchdogs for the faith.” For example some Reformed thinkers depict Charles Finney as denying justification by faith. But even a casual reading of Finney’s autobiography belies any such notion. Finney clearly depended on Christ’s atonement for salvation.

Likewise this article which critiques Norman Shepherd, it seems to me, is trying so hard to crucify him as to virtually deny what Reformed theology affirmed – that faith and works ARE intertwined inextricably. The Westminister Confession states that saving faith “is no dead faith, but worketh by love” (The Westminster Confession, ch 13 sec 2). This is a clear allusion to James’ claim that faith without works is dead. This is “faith-that-works.”

Despite what that article on Shepherd may seem to suggest, the fact is that in Protestantism the sanctifying work of the Spirit (again, speaking loosely) is what gives rise to saving faith (speaking loosely), sanctification underpins saving faith, and hence there is no way in Protestantism to divorce faith from good works. You’ve already claimed that regeneration comes first in Protestant theology. How then can you view Protestantism as faith-without-works?

Was this the reason you originally mentioned Shepherd? Or some other reason I have since forgotten?

 

[JAL]

JAL,

maybe we have two different meanings of imputation we are using. What is your definition of Imputation? What does it mean and why is it necessary?

Imputation means the foregivness of sin based on atonement. It is counting a person as sinless despite his actual sins, in virtue of Christ's propitiation. The Christian is thereby permitted to go to heaven rather than to hell.

I have been assuming you use the term "imputation" in this sense (Protestant imputation), for the sake of discussion.

 

[JAL]

The fact you say things like that justification and sanctification are interchangeable further supports my claims that you dont uderstand the classical protestant situation while I do understand it.

Looks like dishonest debating. I never said that interchangeability was the classical Protestant view. In fact I explicitly denied that at least twice. What I did affirm is that justification and initial sanctification are simultaneous in classical Protestantism, and I agree with this.

[FONT=&quot]As an FYI, one of the most esteemed Pauline scholars of today is Gordon Fee. In his Magnum Opus on Paul, a book called God’s Empowering Presence, Fee argues that Galatians is dealing principally with sanctification rather than justification and that Paul uses the term “justified” in that epistle in the sense of sanctification. So I am not the only one who sees these terms as interchangeable in some passages. [/FONT]

 

[JAL]

CatholicDude I just read another critique of Norman Shepherd.

http://www.samwaldron.us/pdfs/CalvinVsShepherd.pdf


Very enlightening. This article shows that Shepherd DID place sanctification (the new birth, regeneration) logically prior to justifying faith. The article argues that this was his error, and that this was NOT the classic Protestant view. In the classic Protestant view, the order is justification, and then sanctification.

The article affirms precisely what I have asserted about Protestantism, namely that it only refers LOOSELY to regeneration as preceding justifying faith (it does this only to emphasize monergism over synergism as I asserted), but that technically, faith comes first, regeneration (the new birth is second). It states:

“Shepherd assumes that regeneration precedes faith in the [Westminister] confession. Actually, this is not clear [in the confesision]. The confession utilizes the category of effectual calling within which to assert the divine and monergistic origin of faith. The chapter on effectual calling speaks of men being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit so that they embrace the grace offered (10:2), but does not explicitly call this regeneration.”

It’s not considered “regeneration” until the saving work is complete (until justifying faith is established) and therefore, in Protestantism, justifying faith comes first, it precedes regeneration and sanctification. The article again affirms this point:

“When Calvin elsewhere allows that, in a sense, regeneration precedes faith, he only means that one may speak of the Holy Spirit creating faith as regenerative. When speaking this way, however, he carefully avoids equating regeneration with moral renewal or the process of sanctification. He rather makes clear that “newness of life” is a RESULT of the union with Christ created by faith.”

Thus all of this is the reverse of what you stated, Dude. You said that Protestantism puts sanctification first, before justification – precisely what Shepherd was criticized for. Thanks for mentioning him.

Personally, I believe all this is splitting theological hairs, since we are talking about events which are temporally simultaneous (justification, regeneration, and initial sanctification) - why does anyone really care which one is logically prior to the others? What has all this got to do with the price of tomatoes in China, anyway?

I do agree with Shepherd that there is a sense in which justification is by works – I said this follows from a tangible soul where faith and works are one and the same – but of course I admitted this isn’t the classical Protestant view. The advantage of my view is that it provides a solution for James’ claim, “A man is justified by what he does, and not by faith alone.”

 

[Silenus]

I didn’t see you address these verses I mentioned in that same paragraph: Rev 2:4-5; Rev 3:3; and especially Heb 10:26-29.

I must have missed them. I may address them later, but I think, with the size of the posts thus far, a good old fashioned summary and focusing post might be in order, just to see where we are at. I’m going to try to boil down to our contentious point and to one quote per point to begin limiting the debate and seeing what is more fundamental . . . I am not trying to ignore anything you said in this process.

Here is how I see the debate

1) How does the perseverance of the saints work?

Catholics would say not everyone who is called also perseveres in their Christian life. 2 Pt 1:9 above supports this showing a person who lacks those good qualities, yet was cleansed of his past sin. If someone was cleansed from his past sin you must admit they were saved, yet you also have to explain how they failed to produce the good works Peter describes. I also said this is part of the mystery of how Gods Providence and Free Will work together.

As both JAL and I have mentioned, they fail to produce good works because they are not cooperating in their sanctification or they were never called and justified in the first place. A person who is saved will eventually cooperate in their sanctification because, as you call it, the gift of repentance and perseverance.

The end of Romans 11 (11:25-32) is a hard passages because some say it means literally all Jews will be saved in the end based on their favored status given to them because God found favor with their father Abraham. Others say all cant be saved because many of the rejected Christ and rather offer different answers, for example that the Jews living at the time of Christ's return will recognize him and repent.

How does that impact what seem to be a plain text?

About the comments about "saved" here and now but not in Heaven (saved in the end), you must admit the Bible talks like this. As for your verses about God preserving this or that individual, I have said that plays into the gift of perseverance which I talked about previously.

But, from God’s perspective, that person was not saved . . . sanctification is a continuous process and so there are times in my life where I can say I felt as if I was saved again, because there was some kind of spiritual breakthrough. But, again, if God causes you to persevere, then he has called and saved you. If not, then he has not. You must consider what I mentioned before that you have been silent about . . . that, from Paul’s perspective, he cannot look at the churches he is writing to and see who has real faith and who has not received that gift do perseverance. So he speaks as such. This makes a better consistency with the other verses I mentioned than saying they lose their salvation.

The Holy Spirit is not a bad guard and nobody can pluck a believer out of God's hand, that is not the same as a believer themselves turning away, that is the key. External evils cant remove you from God's love, but you yourself turning away can (1 Cor 3:16-17; Gal 3:3; 6:7-9; etc).

[FONT=&quot]2Co 1:21-22[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](21)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](22)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.[/FONT]


But the spirit is a seal and a guarantee. If I can fall away, the spirit guarantees nothing. It is essentially not able to do what God sent it to do, establish us in Christ. And still, that doesn’t answer the previous verses I’ve given for why I think perseverance of the saints is correct.

2)David and can you lose your salvation, justification?

The promise is an extension of the one of Abraham in which since Abraham pleased God his lineage would have a favored status and produce the messiah. With David this narrowed to the messiah coming from a kingly lineage. What those promises did not mean is that those standing in the way would not be punished, even losing salvation, it means the path God laid out would have faithful witnesses along the way.

Yes, but it was a specific Kingly lineage, David’s. Furthermore, the promise is said as thus . . .

[FONT=&quot]2Sa 7:14-15[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](14)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](15)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you.[/FONT]

If God’s steadfast love will not depart, how can he lose salvation? I see no scriptural proof for David losing his salvation . . . the closest that can be said is where David talks about the joy of His salvation, which seems to me to be a stretch.

The key above is that David lost his justification when he fell into that sin BUT REPENTED and restored it before death. That is an astronomical distinction between the Catholic view and your Protestant view which teaches Christians can commit those "sins" yet they wont lose their salvation. Repentance is a gift of God in so far as those Christians who fall into grave sin and get it can repent, those Christians who fall into grave sin and don’t get it don’t repent in time and are damned.

The Catholic view is far more consistent for it makes sins such as adultery and murder grave sin which Christians are able to commit and must be repented of. In your view, with imputation repentance and perseverance lose their meaning. Think back to the dirty diaper example, with imputation the diaper is covered by a clean cloth, what goes on under that cloth has no effect on how God views the diaper because He sees only the clean cloth.

No, protestants say the same thing about sin, that those who are called justified and saved will repent and seek the Lord while he is near and that is proof that they are saved. In your view, the only reason they persist is that they repent and they only reason they repent is because they were given a gift. Protestants believe that they are saved, justified, and sealed with the spirit and that their repentance is a result of there sincere faith.

I’ll look into the mortal sin, venial sin thing again just to be sure I understand it before I post.

3)The terms themselves

You have to explain what "washed" "sanctified" and "justified" mean then as events that took place in the past in those Christian's lives which Paul was talking to. In places like Eph 5:26 Paul makes similar comments using the term "sanctify" "cleanse" and "wash" in the same verse.

Protestants have made an explanation that doesn’t reduce justification to tautology. Sanctification is a past continuous event, to use the language of verb tense.

sorry if anything is unclear . . . i typed fast on this one.