Catholic vs. Protestant: Justification

[Catholic Dude]

(cont 2 of 2)

I'm not saying that the only place that someone is justified is when it uses those words. [1] I am saying is that there is no indication that Abraham was justified three separate occasions and that, somewhere, he lost his righteousness so he needed to be justified again. [2] That is where there are problems. The Hebrews 11 links justification to faith, and so does all the verses you mentioned. [3] James never says this was the moment of justification. James says that his act was an action stemming from his faith and that his faith makes him righteous, not his act. [4] As for it saying he is sanctified, I'm not sure how that impacts anything. Yes Abraham was growing is his relationship to God, but never stopped being justified before God. [5]

[1] Ok, so if the phrase "credited as righteousness" is not required then that further helps my pre-gen 15 justification case because logically the moment of conversion is when someone is justified, and that had to have occurred pre-Gen 15. But if that is the case you have to explain what happened in Gen 15:6 because at that point in Abraham's life he was "credited with righteousness" for believing what God told him in 15:1-5. Yet if he was already justified in Gn 12, then the only possible thing according to your theology is that Abraham grew in sanctification in 15:6, but that leads to serious problems.

[2] I never claimed that Abraham lost his righteousness, so that is irrelevant. All I claimed is that he grew in righteousness, and that fits the Biblical evidence far far better than a one time justification in Gen 15:6.

[3] Amen, and Heb 11:8 puts the act of obedience of Abraham at Gen 12, thus you must admit Abraham was justified in Genesis 12.

[4] James says, "Was not Abraham justified by works when he offered up Isaac..." And "you see a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." That is explicitly saying Gen 22:10-12 was a moment of justification. The act and faith are inseprable, in Heb 11:8 it says "by faith Abraham obeyed" and left his home.

[5] The sanctification issue impacts a lot. If Arbaham was justified in Gen 12, as you must logically admit, then EVERYTHING he did afterwards was growing in sanctification, including Gen 15:6 and Gen 22:10-12. The two problems that arise from that is that "credited with righteousness" cannot said to be a moment of justification, and the second problem is that the term "sacntification" is not used by Paul in Rom 4 or by James in James 2 which it should be had the Protestant ordo salutis (justification then sanctification) been the Biblcal one. You say that Abraham was growing in his relationship, that by definition is the sanctification phase of salvation.



The best explanation, in fact the only explanation, that fits the Biblical evidence is the Catholic model, especially in the case of Abraham. I consider this proof decisive, and I have yet to see a coherent solution for how this fits the Protestant model.

 

[JAL]

(cont 2 of 2)

[1] Ok, so if the phrase "credited as righteousness" is not required then that further helps my pre-gen 15 justification case because logically the moment of conversion is when someone is justified, and that had to have occurred pre-Gen 15. But if that is the case you have to explain what happened in Gen 15:6 because at that point in Abraham's life he was "credited with righteousness" for believing what God told him in 15:1-5. Yet if he was already justified in Gn 12, then the only possible thing according to your theology is that Abraham grew in sanctification in 15:6, but that leads to serious problems.

[2] I never claimed that Abraham lost his righteousness, so that is irrelevant. All I claimed is that he grew in righteousness, and that fits the Biblical evidence far far better than a one time justification in Gen 15:6.

[3] Amen, and Heb 11:8 puts the act of obedience of Abraham at Gen 12, thus you must admit Abraham was justified in Genesis 12.

[4] James says, "Was not Abraham justified by works when he offered up Isaac..." And "you see a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." That is explicitly saying Gen 22:10-12 was a moment of justification. The act and faith are inseprable, in Heb 11:8 it says "by faith Abraham obeyed" and left his home.

[5] The sanctification issue impacts a lot. If Arbaham was justified in Gen 12, as you must logically admit, then EVERYTHING he did afterwards was growing in sanctification, including Gen 15:6 and Gen 22:10-12. The two problems that arise from that is that "credited with righteousness" cannot said to be a moment of justification, and the second problem is that the term "sacntification" is not used by Paul in Rom 4 or by James in James 2 which it should be had the Protestant ordo salutis (justification then sanctification) been the Biblcal one. You say that Abraham was growing in his relationship, that by definition is the sanctification phase of salvation.



The best explanation, in fact the only explanation, that fits the Biblical evidence is the Catholic model, especially in the case of Abraham. I consider this proof decisive, and I have yet to see a coherent solution for how this fits the Protestant model.

Excellent argument - indeed this is a point of objection I've raised against the Protestant paradigm myself. The fact is, as you point out, Genesis 15:6 is adduced by Paul as a prooftext during his discussion of justification by faith. And I would also agree that Protestant commentators and scholars have conspicuously ignored this apparent contradiction, and that I've never seen one of them even ATTEMPT to address it.



However, I do not agree that this data disproves justification by faith alone. It merely disproves the Protestant rendition of it. Now I will briefly summarize my own rendition of justification by faith alone.


One of the (many) contradictions in traditional Protestant thinking is in sanctification. They admit that the new birth is an impartation of holiness. (For example the phrase “the saints” used about 60 times in the NT literally means “the holy ones” – it is the same word “holy” used 90 times in the phrase “the Holy Spirit”). When we say that God is holy, we rightly take this to mean that He is not unholy at the same time – by the law of noncontradiction. Therefore, how does the sinful nature persist after the new birth? And that is the contradiction unresolved by Protestant theologians. MY solution as to how it persists is that the human heart is composite rather than simple - in fact I agree with Tertullian that it is actually a physical substance. Thus the new birth is such that the Spirit of Holiness was poured out on only PART of the heart - the remainder is the sinful nature (a slight oversimplification, but will do for now). Now this Spirit of Holiness - in the reborn sector – is responsible for creating and sustaining saving faith. The reborn sector is holy – therefore by definition it abides in faith. Keep in mind that only that which has justifying faith is justified by faith. Technically, then, the sinful nature is not justified by faith.

Each subsequent outpouring of the Spirit – given in response to prayer (Lk 11:13) – is a sanctification, it falls upon the sinful nature as to cleanse more of it (crucifies more of it). Justification by faith is therefore both an event (because each outpouring including the initial new birth is instantaneous) and a process (because multiple outpourings are needed). Stated differently, Paul sometimes uses the terms “justification” and “sanctification” interchangeably because they are coterminous, although, to be fair, the emphasis in Romans is on “justification” (essentially in the Reformed sense of imputed righteousness) whereas in Galatians the emphasis is on “sanctification” (essentially in the Reformed sense of purification).

According to Galatians 3:16, “The promises [of an inheritance] were spoken (“loud and clear”) to Abraham and to [us] his seed” because “you are Abraham’s seed and heirs with him” (verse 29). Note that the promise of an inheritance was given BEFORE Abraham’s sanctification (justification) was complete. You see, the completion of the process is PART OF THE PROMISE. God will bring us to perfection. (It wasn’t conditioned upon Abraham’s good works, which is in large part Paul’s argument in both Romans and Galatians – note especially Rom 4:1-6 where Paul makes it pretty explicit that Abraham was justified by faith alone, not by works).

Thus anyone who has saving faith – anyone who has BEGUN the process – will complete the process, by virtue of The Promise. Let me remind you that according to Paul, Genesis 15:6 was an Abrahamic justification. What good works did Abraham “do” to earn that justification? Nothing. Justifying faith comes by hearing (Rom 10:17) – hearing what? Hearing God speak the promises (Gal 3:16). Thus Gen 15 begins like this, “The word of the Lord came [loud and clear] to Abram in a vision….He believed God [speaking promises], and he credited to him as righteousness”. This is the divine spoken Word – an outpouring of the Holy Spirit bringing more sanctification (more justifying faith). This is justification by faith alone, not justification by good works.

So much for Paul. I haven’t yet dealt with James’ statement, “You see a man is justified by what he does, and not by faith alone.” This deserves some discussion, but I’m not sure I care to devote the time. (I haven’t posted for several weeks because I’m always trying to break the addiction to this forum).

 

[Silenus]

From now on, out of my affinity for the Big Lebowski, I will from now on refer to you as The Dude. I hope you don’t mind . . .

The dude,

Let us begin with Galatians 5 . . .

What on earth could "Christ will be of no value to you" mean apart from losing salvation? Same for phrases like "fallen from grace" and "severed from Christ". You are basically making those passage of no meaning.

Exactly what it says in the text . . . If you rely on the law and circumscism to save you, then Christ will be of no value. If I depend on works I am no longer relying on grace . . . I am not living by faith, and it is by grace you are saved through faith. How this addresses the perseverance of the saints question, I’m not sure. To interpret this as a loss of salvation means that they had first had it. While, the whole question before us on this issue would be whether someone turning from the gospel is a loss of salvation or is it the tree bearing the fruit that reveals itself. This verse wouldn’t address that.

Verse 5 is talking about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, so you are righteous at that moment, but as I said this is not a stagnant state, you grow more righteous until the day you are glorified. It goes back to parts like Gal 3:2-3 where they had the Spirit indwelling and leading them to grow in Christ but were turning away.

You statement is complicated by the fact that it doesn’t say we wait for righteousness or more righteousness, but it says the hope of righteousness, like it is a state we wait for to happen in the future. Not something that has transpired now . . . It is speaking of glorification. In fact, this chapter you just pointed out may cause me to doubt the Wright position. Here it indeed, seems to be a binary state, you are or you are not. Period. I’ll have to read it more in context to see . . .

Those verses show no indication about losing salvation?...despite the fact the mention being punished with hellfire and losing heaven is mentioned if you engage in those sins?

Gal 5:19-21 is talking about the fruit of the flesh, but to say anyone who commits any of these acts, not as a lifestyle, but as a fall into temptation would have to contradict Paul later in Romans. Would you say David lost salvation when he committed murder and adultery? That’s quite a scriptural stretch.

As for Mark . . .

Mar 9:43 And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire.

Mar 9:44 where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mar 9:45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell.
Mar 9:46 where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mar 9:47 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell,
Mar 9:48 'where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.'

How does this support the loss of salvation? This is talking about sin, yes, but . . . I’m sorry I have no clue as to how you are using Mark to support your position. You’re going to need to clarify or we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Now, in regards to Romans 4 . . .

The context of Paul's reference to David's repentance in Rom 4:5-6 was clearly justification, I have never come across any Protestant who said otherwise. When Jesus forgives our sins it is a change in the status of your soul (eg 1 Jn 1:9)

I looked this up in a few of the reformers commentaries, and Calvin, to take one, said what I said.

Here he is . . .

that God justifies men by not imputing sin: and by these words we are taught that righteousness, according to Paul, is nothing else than the remission of sins; and further, that this remission is gratuitous, because it is imputed without works, which the very name of remission indicates; for the creditor who is paid does not remit, but he who spontaneously cancels the debt through mere kindness. Away, then, with those who teach us to redeem pardon for our sins by satisfactions; for Paul borrows an argument from this pardon to prove the gratuitous gift of righteousness.

He is saying what I basically said, that justification is the forgiveness of sins and that he is quoting David celebrating that blessing of justification, hence, “just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one of whom God counts as righteous . . .” Forgiveness is the blessing applied to the justified. I feel like we’re talking past each other here, because I don’t think you’d disagree with this, so I’m not sure what the deal is . . . It is clear that justification comes by grace through faith . . . can we also say forgiveness comes by grace through faith? I don’t see why not . . .

It wouldn’t apply to other people for two reasons, first of all, that was talking specifically about people who never became Christian. That is not the same as a Christian falling into sin. Second of all, not all who fall into sin leave the Church. The fact is Paul spent a good deal of time yelling at the Corinthians and Galatians for turning to lives of sin. My point is that 1 Jn 2:19 is a passage misused by those who teach salvation cannot be lost.

Whoa, Dude, hold on a second. These people were members of the church and part of the church body. From what platform do you get to say they weren’t Christians, but the people Paul is disciplining in Galatians were. Both the anti-Christ’s and the Galatians were members of the church body and engaged in the church life. How else do we interpret they went out from us . . . if they were of us they would have continued with us. They obviously were part of the body and the church and left after there heresy was revealed. I’ll reread the context, because maybe you could argue from later verses that these were people in the church body who denies the father, but this seems unlikely . . . the verse seems to indicate that they were members of the church . . . but this might require a “use of the work anti-Christ” study to parse.

That passage is specifically talking about those who were predestined to Glory, in other words they were saved and given the gift of perseverance. Not everyone who is saved perseveres (eg Mat 24:12-13). Further nothing in that verse indicates salvation cannot be lost, the gift of perseverance means even if a person falls into sin they will be reconciled before death. There are other clear passages that state a person can fail to persevere and lose salvation (Rom 11:20-22; 14:15, 20).

This is something similar to the Federal Vision theology states, except that it makes more sense in their case because they believe in the perseverance of the saints. So, if some people are not given the gift of perseverance, are they then saved? It seems double speak to talk about some people getting a gift that enables them to be glorified, the gift of perseverance and, at the same time, to talk about people losing their salvation? How can we call someone who is not given this gift, who is not to be glorified, be said to be saved? How do you define salvation? This verse says that the justified will be glorified. It doesn’t seem to equivocate on that point. If you are justified, you will be glorified. If God does not give someone the gift of perseverance, then he has not chosen to save them, thereby they are not elect to salvation, glorification. This sounds exactly like the perseverance of the saints to me. Other verses that seem to clearly state that salvation follows for anyone who is justified, who has faith . . . (john 6:38-40, john 10:27-29, Eph 1:13-14, Phil 1:6, I peter 1:5, john 8:31-32, amongst others.) I’m not just throwing verses at you here, I’m just giving you a sample of where I think this doctrine is located. I think, yes there are verses that talk about “if you persevere,” but it is easier to say that Paul is acknowledging that some of those in the congregations he is writing to do not have true faith rather than saying that salvation can be lost, which requires a complete revision and rejection of these and other verses.

Yes we would argue differently because it is the difference between imputed and infused grace at stake. In the Protestant system there is a clear distinction between Justification and Sanctification, they do not occur at the same time (Justification does not depend on Sanctification).

They are using terminology to talk about what God does in salvation. A protestant does not believe that they do not occur at the same time, they go together. You cannot say justification depends on sanctification or vice versa . . . they are a unified act. This is a protestant belief as far as I can tell.

1 Cor 6:11 says "you have been washed, you have been sanctified, you have been justified", this fits the concept of an inner transformation at Justification (which is what Catholics believe) far better than an imputation of an external righteousness as Protestants see it. When it comes to the imputation I see the phrase "Christ's Righteousness" nowhere in scripture, not even the concept.

Yes, sanctification and justification go together . . . how does this support your view or mine, for that matter, when you read the word justification here, you will use your definition . . . when you use sanctification, you will use your definition . . . this doesn’t make either of our cases . . .

The problem that arises though is that you have to explain why the "love of God poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit given to us" (Rom 5:5) is necessary. Further, Im not sure why you mentioned Romans 5:19 which clearly contrasts Adam disobedience making us unrighteous with Jesus' obedience resulting in us being "made righteous

I quoted them because they seem to go against the relationship concept of righteousness. Remember, I am considering views right now and am in somewhat of a state of potential flux as to how I’m going to look at justification.

How can the Spirit make someone "more and more righteous" if righteousness is purely a matter of being in a relationship? That sounds to me like the very irreconcilable conflict we are in right now with Imputation versus Infusion.

Because our relationship with God is imitative, just as Jesus imitated the Father, therefore, we imitate the Son more and more perfectly because we are in relationship to Him. This actually makes sense in the scope of scripture and is what makes the view appealing to me. It seems to take a large scope of scripture into account.

THIS very concept directly plays into why we are required to do good works to grow in righteousness, but have no claim to strict merit ("I did this all by my self), rather it was the grace of God in us that enabled us from the conception to the completion of any good work. You have to be careful here though because continuing on these lines will cause you to logically reject the need for Christ's imputation, especially the idea that Christ kept the commandments in your place. In the quote above, you yourself are required to keep the commandments, enabled by grace, and in that sense go from the "probationary period" to obtain Heaven.

One interesting thing here to point out is that many Reformed don’t believe Adam could have not sinned, and many Reformed mistakenly think Adam could have been "justified by works" as the quote above describes towards the start. The Protestant often condemned phrase "justified by works" has no place in Catholic theology because in Catholic theology there is no room for "I did this myself", but rather the grace in us inspiring and enabling us to do the good works.

Yes, except that, as I stated before, the Federal Vision use of it makes more sense because they believe in the perseverance of the saints. Your view, that someone can be saved and lose it, takes the grace out, because if they lost it, is their fault, it can’t be God’s and therefore, their salvation is not by grace alone, it is not by grace through faith. It my works are all by grace, then I will not fail to do good works because God’s grace does not fail. If I can lose salvation, then salvation is not fully by grace. The only alternative is to say that God’s grace is not sufficient to obtain salvation.

Christian is by definition in union with the Godhead, though we can still sin in this life. This is not to be confused with our perfected state in Heaven, which is glorification. You interpreted "union" to mean glorification, when I meant "union" in reference to being in a relationship with God on earth

Yea, I think we’re talking past one another. I think there’s a Greek Orthodox word for what I’m talking about . . . I’ll look it up.

 

[Silenus]

Yes we sin because we are not fully enlightened, I don’t see how this is in conflict with deceiving ourselves. Deception goes right along with us not knowing enough. When we sin we mistakenly think that that sin will make us happy, in Heaven there is no delusion as to what makes us happy and so we freely chose to love God based on this enlightenment.

This contradicts Romans chapter one and two. They exchanged the truth for a lie doesn’t seem to come close to this. Paul is talking about people who know the truth and reject it. This seems clear to me. The above doctrine stems from Aquinas’ erroneous attempt to make free will be the case of knowledge always seeking truth and the will always seeking the good as its basic function. We are not just ignorant, we are rebellious in full light of the truth, as Paul says in Romans.

I never claimed that Abraham lost his righteousness, so that is irrelevant. All I claimed is that he grew in righteousness, and that fits the Biblical evidence far far better than a one time justification in Gen 15:6.

This is the whole reason I went down this path. It seemed to me that you were using this to bolster the catholic position of justification, i.e. you can lose your justification and need to go to confession to get it back. If you don’t think that Abraham ever lost justification then this whole line of thinking doesn’t apply to our discussion and I ask you where the idea that justification can be lost comes from.

 

[JAL]

(Gal 5:19-21; Mk 9:43-47) Those verses show no indication about losing salvation?...despite the fact the mention being punished with hellfire and losing heaven is mentioned if you engage in those sins? I cant agree with that kind of exegesis at all, those verses are pretty clear to me.

I’m not sure that Mark is dealing with loss of salvation. More likely he is dealing with forfeiting salvation (i.e. someone who never had it). Because that’s the only way I can take his admonition literally, that is to say, for a person who isn’t saved, if the only way he can bring himself to repentance is to cut off the tempting appendage, he is obviously better off doing so than remaining unsaved. Whereas I see little evidence, in the rest of the NT, that saved people are supposed to go cutting off their limbs.

Now as for Galatians, I would agree that the language Paul uses there is very strong and SEEMS to hint about losing one’s salvation. But this isn’t necessarily the case. Again, the term “justification” in Galatians – in my view –principally refers to sanctification. Evidence of this fact appears in chap 3 where Paul is discussing Abraham’s “justification.” The topic at hand, says Paul, is this:

“Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit (i.e. got saved), are ye now made perfect [i.e. mature/sanctified] in the flesh? Does God grant you His Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or by the hearing of faith?...Consider Abraham.”

Hearing of faith? Hearing what? Hearing promises, as Abraham did, as I already have argued. For what purpose? Sanctification! (Because hearings come from sanctifying outpourings of the Holy Spirit as spoken/voiced divine Word). THAT is the point of this epistle. Hence Paul’s string language must be viewed IN THIS CONTEXT. He is saying that, in regard to sanctification, depending on obedience to the law (reading the Bible and trying to do what it says, as Protestants do) instead of waiting upon God for hearings/promises (as Abraham did), is to no avail. Christ will be OF NO VALUE AT ALL (for sanctification) if He is sought in a Bible-based way. (After all, God didn’t create us to be seminary scholars. He created us to fellowship with Christ – to hear His voice – Jn 10:27).

The point is that sanctificaiton is not by good works, it is by grace (instantaneous outpourings just like the initial new birth). Hence the phrase "fallen from grace" clearly could be a reference to works-based sanctification (law-based/bible-based sanctification) rather than a loss of salvation.

Even the phrase "severed from Christ" need not refer to a loss of salvation. One's stock of the Holy Spirit, if considerable, WILL diminish somewhat if he regresses from grace-based sanctification to law-based sanctification. In other words SOME of the human heart will lose its justifying faith when the Spirit "departs from the tabernacle" - it becomes severed from Christ. But this wouldn't be a loss of salvation because in my opinion a saved person will always retain some of the Holy Spirit, permanently.

 

[Catholic Dude]

Excellent argument - indeed this is a point of objection I've raised against the Protestant paradigm myself. The fact is, as you point out, Genesis 15:6 is adduced by Paul as a prooftext during his discussion of justification by faith. And I would also agree that Protestant commentators and scholars have conspicuously ignored this apparent contradiction, and that I've never seen one of them even ATTEMPT to address it.

However, I do not agree that this data disproves justification by faith alone. It merely disproves the Protestant rendition of it. Now I will briefly summarize my own rendition of justification by faith alone.

But if you are saying the Protestant rendition is wrong, then you have undermined the central pillar of the Reformation. All that is left is the Catholic position.

The term "justification by faith alone" is a specific doctrine which revolves around the concept of imputation, which you appear to be rejecting.

One of the (many) contradictions in traditional Protestant thinking is in sanctification. They admit that the new birth is an impartation of holiness. (For example the phrase “the saints” used about 60 times in the NT literally means “the holy ones” – it is the same word “holy” used 90 times in the phrase “the Holy Spirit”). When we say that God is holy, we rightly take this to mean that He is not unholy at the same time – by the law of noncontradiction. Therefore, how does the sinful nature persist after the new birth? And that is the contradiction unresolved by Protestant theologians. MY solution as to how it persists is that the human heart is composite rather than simple - in fact I agree with Tertullian that it is actually a physical substance. Thus the new birth is such that the Spirit of Holiness was poured out on only PART of the heart - the remainder is the sinful nature (a slight oversimplification, but will do for now). Now this Spirit of Holiness - in the reborn sector – is responsible for creating and sustaining saving faith. The reborn sector is holy – therefore by definition it abides in faith. Keep in mind that only that which has justifying faith is justified by faith. Technically, then, the sinful nature is not justified by faith.

What do you mean by "sinful nature" though, and why only "part" of the heart? Protestants reject the Catholic idea that the soul lacks sanctifying grace that must be restored, thus Protestants see grace as an imputation instead. Also how would you interpret a passage like 1 Jn 1:9 with the mention of "cleansing of ALL unrighteousness" rather than "part"?

Each subsequent outpouring of the Spirit – given in response to prayer (Lk 11:13) – is a sanctification, it falls upon the sinful nature as to cleanse more of it (crucifies more of it). Justification by faith is therefore both an event (because each outpouring including the initial new birth is instantaneous) and a process (because multiple outpourings are needed). Stated differently, Paul sometimes uses the terms “justification” and “sanctification” interchangeably because they are coterminous, although, to be fair, the emphasis in Romans is on “justification” (essentially in the Reformed sense of imputed righteousness) whereas in Galatians the emphasis is on “sanctification” (essentially in the Reformed sense of purification).

This isnt far from the Catholic position, however it is unacceptable in the classical Protestant position.

According to Galatians 3:16, “The promises [of an inheritance] were spoken (“loud and clear”) to Abraham and to [us] his seed” because “you are Abraham’s seed and heirs with him” (verse 29). Note that the promise of an inheritance was given BEFORE Abraham’s sanctification (justification) was complete. You see, the completion of the process is PART OF THE PROMISE. God will bring us to perfection. (It wasn’t conditioned upon Abraham’s good works, which is in large part Paul’s argument in both Romans and Galatians – note especially Rom 4:1-6 where Paul makes it pretty explicit that Abraham was justified by faith alone, not by works).

This isnt far from the Catholic position either, though Catholics would emphasize the fact the main issue St Paul is concerned with is not one of a courtroom but of a family restoration, adoption, heir, seed, etc.

Thus anyone who has saving faith – anyone who has BEGUN the process – will complete the process, by virtue of The Promise. Let me remind you that according to Paul, Genesis 15:6 was an Abrahamic justification. What good works did Abraham “do” to earn that justification? Nothing. Justifying faith comes by hearing (Rom 10:17) – hearing what? Hearing God speak the promises (Gal 3:16). Thus Gen 15 begins like this, “The word of the Lord came [loud and clear] to Abram in a vision….He believed God [speaking promises], and he credited to him as righteousness”. This is the divine spoken Word – an outpouring of the Holy Spirit bringing more sanctification (more justifying faith). This is justification by faith alone, not justification by good works.

There is a lot of truth here, but I dont agree the process will be complete in everyone, some will fall away (Lk 8:13; 1 Tim 1:19).

So much for Paul. I haven’t yet dealt with James’ statement, “You see a man is justified by what he does, and not by faith alone.” This deserves some discussion, but I’m not sure I care to devote the time. (I haven’t posted for several weeks because I’m always trying to break the addiction to this forum).

All I can say is be careful, because many of your comments so far sound dangerously Catholic.

 

[JAL]

I’ve decided to deal here with James’ claim, “A man is justified by what he does, and not by faith alone.”

I mentioned earlier that the human soul/heart is actually a tangible substance. There are many ways to demonstrate this both biblically and logically, but I don’t want to spend the time here – except for one rather decisive argument as follows. The phrase “sinful nature” never occurs in the Greek. The term that Paul uses is always “the flesh”, and note that, in probably every language, the term flesh (when utilized to refer to an existing substance) NEVER names or describes immaterial substance. It is a distinctively physical term. Now Paul’s most verbose discussion of “the flesh” (the sinful nature) is in Rom 6-8. The decisive verse is 8:3 where Paul says, “Christ appeared in the (physical!) likeness of sinful flesh.” In other words. Christ’s body LOOKED just like what Paul refers to as “the flesh” (the sinful nature of all human beings). This proves that “the flesh” of which Paul had been speaking is the physical human body. This is not to say there is no distinction between body and soul. Rather, it implies that the soul is a tangible substance so perfectly intermixed with the body that the two essentially form one substance called “the body” (just like a glass of milk and water is called a glass of “milk” alone) so that Paul can refer to the soul simply by referring to the body. Thus he asks, “Who will rescue me from this BODY of death” (7:24) as a clear reference to the sinful nature.

James was keen on this idea of the body as sinful nature. This is clear from his discussion of the untameable member (the tongue). James doesn’t say, “The immaterial mind causes the tongue to do evil.” No. According to James, the tongue is part of the sinful nature, it IS evil, and in fact CAUSES the rest of the body to sin. The rest of the body, said James, CANNOT tame the tongue. This kind of statement only makes sense if indeed the human body is the soul.

The longstanding error of immaterial mind has caused Christians to dissociate motion – especially bodily motion – from states-of-mind. In other words faith as a state of mind is erroneously presumed to be a stasis – a static condition – rather than a flow of physical substance (the body in motion). This idea of stasis flatly contradicts everything physiologists have discovered about cerebral thought. Cerebral thought – which probably constitutes most of our thoughts – is clearly a flow of matter in the brain (electrochemical streams of activity). And to interrupt those flows physically (e.g. via brain damage) can easily impair physically the mind’s ability to think rationally.

The upshot of all this is that every “state” of mind – including faith – exists only to the extent of ongoing bodily movement, and hence THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FAITH WITHOUT BODILY WORKS. Bodily motion IS thought, and vice versa. To be justified by faith IS to be justified good works. No distinction can be made between the two. And to do good works is to bring faith into being and/or to complete the summoning of it into existence and thus, “Abraham’s faith was made complete by what he did.” James capitalized on this fact, using it as a basis for dispelling the notion that one can enter heaven without good works. He warns, “A man is justified by what he does, and not by faith alone.” Understand that here he is strategically using the term “faith” in the popular sense of stasis – he is repudiating THAT kind of faith. To paraphrase, James was saying this: “A man is justified by what he does [which is dynamic faith], and not by stasis-faith alone [faith without works].” Indeed Protestants at large have generally approached this verse in the same way, i.e. they see it as drawing a distinction between dynamic faith (faith-that-works) versus stasis faith (faith without works).


The real question here, though, is this: From whence the impetus of this saving faith (these good works?) If all saving faith (the good works that justify us) were wholly self-generated by a free act of our own willpower, this would be, to some extent, justification by good works rather than justification by faith alone (i.e. grace alone).

Whereas I agree with Protestants that the saving faith (the good works) which justifies us is divinely inspired, i.e. the Holy Spirit MOVES us to believe and to do (He moves us by His love). The result is good works, but these are not really HUMAN good works. It is a divine work.

In sum, James was simply capitalizing on a particular perspective (faith as bodily movement/good works) in order to make the important point that one cannot enter heaven without good works. Ultimately, it would be a misreading to conclude that James was repudiating Paul’s claim that justification is by faith alone apart from (human) good works.

 

[JAL]

But if you are saying the Protestant rendition is wrong, then you have undermined the central pillar of the Reformation. All that is left is the Catholic position.

This statement is a bit silly. Clearly, what I have proposed is a MODIFIED VERSION of justification by faith alone – the central tenet of the Reformation – not a complete repudiation of it.

The term "justification by faith alone" is a specific doctrine which revolves around the concept of imputation, which you appear to be rejecting.

Nope. In fact I said that Romans emphasizes imputation. My whole thesis was clearly dependent on imputation, because I said that Abraham, on this basis, was promised a full justification (and thus a heavenly inheritance) unconditionally (based on Christ’s atonement). God will do the work, I argued.

What do you mean by "sinful nature" though, and why only "part" of the heart?

Already answered. The NT depicts us as both holy and sinful at the same time. Logically, this is possible only if part of the heart is holy, and part sinful. The law of noncontradiction affords no other solution. (The sinful nature is the taint often called original sin, i.e., a tendency/addiction to sin into which all men are born).

Also how would you interpret a passage like 1 Jn 1:9 with the mention of "cleansing of ALL unrighteousness" rather than "part"?

Scripture regularly speaks with limited force – the force of a statement being limited to the immediate context. For example, “No man has ever seen God” – huh? Many have seen God. Or an example more to the point, “All the old things have passed away, the new is come” – huh? No more sinful nature? The reality is that IN THE CONTEXT OF THE REBORN SECTOR, all the old has passed away. It is now holy. But in regard to the remainder of the heart it is still sinful – but I said this was an oversimplification. I also believe in a middle ground (established by a divine cleansing, a “neutral” sector whereby the Christian has freedom to choose between good and evil, and when it chooses evil, God “cleanses it of ALL unrighteousness” (i.e. He neutralizes it again).

This isnt far from the Catholic position, however it is unacceptable in the classical Protestant position.

Obviously I am not defending “classical Protestantism.” What I am proposing is a revision of Protestantism which preserves the key element – justification by faith alone – without endorsing Catholicism.

There is a lot of truth here, but I dont agree the process will be complete in everyone, some will fall away (Lk 8:13; 1 Tim 1:19).

And I think you stand on very solid ground in this conclusion. I don’t think Scripture is 100% clear on ANY of these issues. And hence, for me, the decisive factor, on many issues, is simply the question, “What does the Holy Spirit SEEM to be teaching me on this issue?” This kind of tentative conclusion (see my signature) is the best I can do for now, because I don’t yet hear Him as “loud and clear” as did Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Paul (etc).

All I can say is be careful, because many of your comments so far sound dangerously Catholic.

Only because you know so little about my views as yet!

 

[Catholic Dude]

Let us begin with Galatians 5 . . .
Exactly what it says in the text . . . If you rely on the law and circumscism to save you, then Christ will be of no value. If I depend on works I am no longer relying on grace . . . I am not living by faith, and it is by grace you are saved through faith. How this addresses the perseverance of the saints question, I’m not sure. To interpret this as a loss of salvation means that they had first had it. While, the whole question before us on this issue would be whether someone turning from the gospel is a loss of salvation or is it the tree bearing the fruit that reveals itself. This verse wouldn’t address that..

You yourself said you could subscribe to the Mosaic Law (circumcision) and that Christ would be of no value to you. Along with that would mean you were "fallen from grace" and "severed from Christ". The problem is that you havnt explained what these mean in regards to a Christian's relationship with God.

Those sound like relationship damaging effects, yet your comments make it sound like a Christian could do them and be perfectly fine.

Further, falling from grace certainly implies you were in grace at one point, as does being severed from Christ indicate there was a connection at one point. To suggest otherwise is as absurd as saying Paul was warning people about getting their car stolen yet none of them owned a car.

You statement is complicated by the fact that it doesn’t say we wait for righteousness or more righteousness, but it says the hope of righteousness, like it is a state we wait for to happen in the future. Not something that has transpired now . . . It is speaking of glorification. In fact, this chapter you just pointed out may cause me to doubt the Wright position. Here it indeed, seems to be a binary state, you are or you are not. Period. I’ll have to read it more in context to see . .

Well it is a Biblical fact that people living are called "righteous" so if you are saying this is exclusively a future thing implying Heaven means there is a contradiction. Further there are passages that I mentioned in my last post like Heb 12:23 mentions "righteous men made perfect" supporting the idea of being righteous and also able to be perfected (in Heaven).
Further as I already said, these people already had the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Gal 3:2-3) so there was a change in their soul and thus to put this "righteousness" as exclusively a future thing doesnt make sense.

Gal 5:19-21 is talking about the fruit of the flesh, but to say anyone who commits any of these acts, not as a lifestyle, but as a fall into temptation would have to contradict Paul later in Romans.

That is improper exegesis and I cannot accept it. You are using your idea of another passage to turn this warning into no consequence. Paul says he warns them, a warning means danger, and says that if they engage in those sins they will not inherit the kingdom. There is also no such Biblical distinction as the Protestant idea of "lifestyle" vs "every once in a while", adultery is adultery, even if you do it once every 2 years, it still falls under Paul's warning.

Would you say David lost salvation when he committed murder and adultery? That’s quite a scriptural stretch.

He certainly did lose his salvation when he committed those sins, and there is nothing "stretch" about it. He must ask for forgiveness and there are references to him needing the guilt removed and his soul cleansed. Anything else is saying he committed those sins, and in fact any Christian can commit those sins, and they dont have to worry about anything.

Is it a Scriptural stretch to say murder and adultery are sin (1 Jn 3:15)?
This is the problem with Protestant theology, they must re interpret the rest of Scripture to fit Justification by Imputation theology. The Reformed position is especially interesting because logically there is no such thing as sin in their theology, the world is divided into believers who can do no wrong and unbelievers who can do nothing right. If you were to go out and commit adultery then you would have to believe you are still saved, while if an unbeliever were to do that he would be earning himself a spot in hell.

As for Mark . . .
How does this support the loss of salvation? This is talking about sin, yes, but . . . I’m sorry I have no clue as to how you are using Mark to support your position. You’re going to need to clarify or we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

I dont know how much more of this I can take. Jesus warns about things that cause you to sin and says it is better to enter eternal life maimed than to be healthy and be thrown in hell. If that isnt about losing salvation then all I can say is you are sacrificing the clear teaching of Scripture to salvage your Faith Alone theology.

Now, in regards to Romans 4 . . .

I looked this up in a few of the reformers commentaries, and Calvin, to take one, said what I said.

Here he is . . .
He is saying what I basically said, that justification is the forgiveness of sins and that he is quoting David celebrating that blessing of justification, hence, “just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one of whom God counts as righteous . . .” Forgiveness is the blessing applied to the justified. I feel like we’re talking past each other here, because I don’t think you’d disagree with this, so I’m not sure what the deal is . . . It is clear that justification comes by grace through faith . . . can we also say forgiveness comes by grace through faith? I don’t see why not . . .

The issue with me mentioning david is that that quote was a moment of Justification in David's life. Yet he was a believer long before he wrote that Psalm, thus the sin he is repenting of lost his justification, and this Pslam is talking about him becoming justified again.

Whoa, Dude, hold on a second. These people were members of the church and part of the church body. From what platform do you get to say they weren’t Christians, but the people Paul is disciplining in Galatians were. Both the anti-Christ’s and the Galatians were members of the church body and engaged in the church life. How else do we interpret they went out from us . . . if they were of us they would have continued with us. They obviously were part of the body and the church and left after there heresy was revealed. I’ll reread the context, because maybe you could argue from later verses that these were people in the church body who denies the father, but this seems unlikely . . . the verse seems to indicate that they were members of the church . . . but this might require a “use of the work anti-Christ” study to parse.

The context is the key here. Paul never ever says they were not believers, where as 1 Jn 2:19 is abundantly clear this is in reference to the "anti-Christs" who deny Jesus is the Son and Messiah, these anti-Christs were pretending to be Christian. All throughout Corinthians and Galatians Paul is yelling at Christians to shape up, places like 2 Cor 12:21 show Paul almost in tears because of Christians who turned to lives of sin and still not repented.

There are TWO types of people we are dealing with here, those who never were Christians but pretended to be, and those who were Christians who turned to lives of sin. To you there is only one category, those who never were Christians, to the Bible there are two categories.

This is something similar to the Federal Vision theology states, except that it makes more sense in their case because they believe in the perseverance of the saints. So, if some people are not given the gift of perseverance, are they then saved?

When Reformed talk about "perseverance" it doesnt make sense. There is no "persevering" when the possibility of falling doesnt exist. If you are in a pit, you are "saved" when a rope comes down to pull you up, but the potential for falling back in still exists, only by reaching the top and being pulled out are you saved in the future and final sense of the term (in Heaven).

It seems double speak to talk about some people getting a gift that enables them to be glorified, the gift of perseverance and, at the same time, to talk about people losing their salvation? How can we call someone who is not given this gift, who is not to be glorified, be said to be saved? How do you define salvation?

You appear to be looking at the concept of "saved" in the classical Protestant sense of a one time once and for all Justification by imputation. The Catholic model has salvation as a past, present and future reality. You are saved when you enter into a relationship with Jesus, but if you abandon that relationship down the road you lose your salvation. The Matt 24:12f passage I quoted says "those who stand firm to the end will be saved".

This verse says that the justified will be glorified. It doesn’t seem to equivocate on that point. If you are justified, you will be glorified. If God does not give someone the gift of perseverance, then he has not chosen to save them, thereby they are not elect to salvation, glorification. This sounds exactly like the perseverance of the saints to me.

The people Paul is talking about in Rom 8:29 are those who "loved God" (verse 28). This is loving God to the end, which not all do. Places like Mat 24:12f (and other places) show the love of many growing cold and them falling away.

Other verses that seem to clearly state that salvation follows for anyone who is justified, who has faith . . . (john 6:38-40, john 10:27-29, Eph 1:13-14, Phil 1:6, I peter 1:5, john 8:31-32, amongst others.) I’m not just throwing verses at you here, I’m just giving you a sample of where I think this doctrine is located.

That in no way logically teaches salvation cannot be lost, only that those Predestined to Glory will repent should they fall into sin.

I think, yes there are verses that talk about “if you persevere,” but it is easier to say that Paul is acknowledging that some of those in the congregations he is writing to do not have true faith rather than saying that salvation can be lost, which requires a complete revision and rejection of these and other verses.

I totally disagree and again it is because your exegesis is driven by your Faith Alone theology. In the end Paul was wasting his breath because if salvation was never on the line then warning them and yelling at them was superfluous.
Places like 1 Cor 10:1-12 are clear warnings taking the Israelites as an example. They were "saved" when God led them out of Egypt, but many of them sinned and were condemned down the road.

They are using terminology to talk about what God does in salvation. A protestant does not believe that they do not occur at the same time, they go together. You cannot say justification depends on sanctification or vice versa . . . they are a unified act. This is a protestant belief as far as I can tell.

Classical Protestant theology teaches they do not occur at the same time. The ordo salutis states justification then sanctification. Justification does not depend on sanctification, though sanctification depends on justification already having occured.

Yes, sanctification and justification go together . . . how does this support your view or mine, for that matter, when you read the word justification here, you will use your definition . . . when you use sanctification, you will use your definition . . . this doesn’t make either of our cases . . .

It makes my case for infusion of grace because "washed" and "sanctified" are not terms of imputation. The classical protestant view is adamant and careful to maintain that no change in the individual plays into justification, there is supposed to be nothing righteous about the soul God is going to declare righteous. Otherwise you would be forced to interpret places like Gen 15:6 as God recognizing Abraham's faith as a righteous act, rather than imputing righteousness to him.

In the end "washed" and "sanctified" have to mean something, I dont think the Protestant view can give a sufficient explanation for what they mean without infringing on the distinction between justification and sanctification.

 

[Catholic Dude]

I quoted them because they seem to go against the relationship concept of righteousness. Remember, I am considering views right now and am in somewhat of a state of potential flux as to how I’m going to look at justification.

Just a warning, you could end up on the "dark side" (catholicism) if you are not careful. Already you seem to be questioning classical Protestant teachings/concepts.

Because our relationship with God is imitative, just as Jesus imitated the Father, therefore, we imitate the Son more and more perfectly because we are in relationship to Him. This actually makes sense in the scope of scripture and is what makes the view appealing to me. It seems to take a large scope of scripture into account.

But you must admit an internal change going on here. Imitating means you are internally growing more and more holy. You cant imitate more and more and remain the same, that is logically impossible.

Yes, except that, as I stated before, the Federal Vision use of it makes more sense because they believe in the perseverance of the saints. Your view, that someone can be saved and lose it, takes the grace out, because if they lost it, is their fault, it can’t be God’s and therefore, their salvation is not by grace alone, it is not by grace through faith. It my works are all by grace, then I will not fail to do good works because God’s grace does not fail. If I can lose salvation, then salvation is not fully by grace. The only alternative is to say that God’s grace is not sufficient to obtain salvation.

You have an incorrect view of grace then. God allowed Adam to fall from grace, God allows Christians to sin. Your fundamental view of grace is external and imputed.

This contradicts Romans chapter one and two. They exchanged the truth for a lie doesn’t seem to come close to this. Paul is talking about people who know the truth and reject it. This seems clear to me. The above doctrine stems from Aquinas’ erroneous attempt to make free will be the case of knowledge always seeking truth and the will always seeking the good as its basic function. We are not just ignorant, we are rebellious in full light of the truth, as Paul says in Romans.

They bought into the lie thinking it would make them more happy. Nobody does something that they think will hurt them. People dont sin trying to damn themselves.

This is the whole reason I went down this path. It seemed to me that you were using this to bolster the catholic position of justification, i.e. you can lose your justification and need to go to confession to get it back. If you don’t think that Abraham ever lost justification then this whole line of thinking doesn’t apply to our discussion and I ask you where the idea that justification can be lost comes from.

I was working on two principles. One was that people can grow in justification (Abraham) and the other is people can lose justification and regain it (David). If you cant answer the Abraham situation then I must assume your view on justificaiton is wrong. I have still not seen a direct and logical solution put forward.

 

[Silenus]

yo dude.

okay, Let me ask you, how is justification distinguished from santification in catholic theology . . . and do you know of any difference between catholic and eastern orthodox justification?

 

[Catholic Dude]

yo dude.

okay, Let me ask you, how is justification distinguished from santification in catholic theology . . . and do you know of any difference between catholic and eastern orthodox justification?

As I understand Catholic theology they are interchangeable terms.

 

[JAL]

Classical Protestant theology teaches [that justification and sanctification] do not occur at the same time. The ordo salutis states justification then sanctification. Justification does not depend on sanctification, though sanctification depends on justification already having occured.

It makes my case for infusion of grace because "washed" and "sanctified" are not terms of imputation. The classical protestant view is adamant and careful to maintain that no change in the individual plays into justification, there is supposed to be nothing righteous about the soul God is going to declare righteous. Otherwise you would be forced to interpret places like Gen 15:6 as God recognizing Abraham's faith as a righteous act, rather than imputing righteousness to him.

In the end "washed" and "sanctified" have to mean something, I dont think the Protestant view can give a sufficient explanation for what they mean without infringing on the distinction between justification and sanctification.

Just a minor point here. You keep referring to the ordo salutis (justification and then sanctification). You seem to take this to mean that classic Protestantism regards a newborn Christian as potentially justified prior to any sanctification. If so, you are quite mistaken. Ordo Salutis is just a generalized summary of the stages involved in the economy of redemeption, so don’t read too much into it. As I have already said, classic Protestantism – not to mention all later evangelicalism – sees the new birth as an impartation of holiness, “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation. Old things are gone, behold! The new is come.” R.C. Sproul is fond of saying, “Justification and sanctification are two sides of a coin.” Not only is this made clear in the Protestant Reformed creeds, in fact it actually flows directly from Calvin’s assumptions. Calvin held that total depravity is what hinders initial repentance. As long as the sinner remains depraved, he will never repent, because he is hostile to God. The Holy Spirit must change his heart, causing him to love God and thus to have a desire to obey. And since a state of love fulfills the law (Rom 13), this is holiness/sanctification. But virtually all Protestants, including Calvin, have realized that the initial sanctification is incomplete sanctification (the sinful nature persists in some sense). Hence there is an ongoing process of sanctification subsequent to regeneration, as expressed in the Ordo Salutis (regeneration first, and then sanctification) but you shouldn’t take this to mean that Protestants divest the new birth of sanctification. (Perhaps I am misunderstanding you).

Classical Protestantism has always held that saving faith is faith-that-works, and that faith without works is dead. Justification and sanctification are inextricably interwined in the classical view, although not interchangeable. Again, I see this is as missing the mark slightly, because in my view Paul sometimes does use the term justification interchangeably with sanctification.

I will concede there may be a sense in which classic Protestantism makes justification logically prior to initial sanctification, but not temporally prior.

 

[JAL]

I was working on two principles. One was that people can grow in justification (Abraham) and the other is people can lose justification and regain it (David). If you cant answer the Abraham situation then I must assume your view on justificaiton is wrong. I have still not seen a direct and logical solution put forward.

I'll assume you are not including my theology in this conclusion, because I myself DID provide a theology which allows for Abraham growing in justification, and I did this without renouncing the basic idea of justification by faith alone apart from (human) works.
But yes, you are probably right that the assumptions of classical Protestantism afford no such solution, nor any solution at all to this problem.

 

[Catholic Dude]

(warning, very long, feel free to skim)

I’m not sure that Mark is dealing with loss of salvation. More likely he is dealing with forfeiting salvation (i.e. someone who never had it). Because that’s the only way I can take his admonition literally, that is to say, for a person who isn’t saved, if the only way he can bring himself to repentance is to cut off the tempting appendage, he is obviously better off doing so than remaining unsaved. Whereas I see little evidence, in the rest of the NT, that saved people are supposed to go cutting off their limbs.

I disagree with that interpretation, Christ was first and foremost speaking to believers. The reference to cutting off means anything in this life that causes you to sin (eg alcohol) it is better to miss out than to indulge and be sent to hell for falling into a grave sin (getting drunk). If someone is a non believer who wants to indulge in that sin already then Jesus words mean nothing to them, and according to you they dont apply to Christians then logically they dont really apply to anyone.

Now as for Galatians, I would agree that the language Paul uses there is very strong and SEEMS to hint about losing one’s salvation. But this isn’t necessarily the case. Again, the term “justification” in Galatians – in my view –principally refers to sanctification. Evidence of this fact appears in chap 3 where Paul is discussing Abraham’s “justification.” The topic at hand, says Paul, is this:

“Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit (i.e. got saved), are ye now made perfect [i.e. mature/sanctified] in the flesh? Does God grant you His Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or by the hearing of faith?...Consider Abraham.”

Hearing of faith? Hearing what? Hearing promises, as Abraham did, as I already have argued. For what purpose? Sanctification! (Because hearings come from sanctifying outpourings of the Holy Spirit as spoken/voiced divine Word). THAT is the point of this epistle. Hence Paul’s string language must be viewed IN THIS CONTEXT. He is saying that, in regard to sanctification, depending on obedience to the law (reading the Bible and trying to do what it says, as Protestants do) instead of waiting upon God for hearings/promises (as Abraham did), is to no avail. Christ will be OF NO VALUE AT ALL (for sanctification) if He is sought in a Bible-based way. (After all, God didn’t create us to be seminary scholars. He created us to fellowship with Christ – to hear His voice – Jn 10:27).

The point is that sanctificaiton is not by good works, it is by grace (instantaneous outpourings just like the initial new birth). Hence the phrase "fallen from grace" clearly could be a reference to works-based sanctification (law-based/bible-based sanctification) rather than a loss of salvation.

Even the phrase "severed from Christ" need not refer to a loss of salvation. One's stock of the Holy Spirit, if considerable, WILL diminish somewhat if he regresses from grace-based sanctification to law-based sanctification. In other words SOME of the human heart will lose its justifying faith when the Spirit "departs from the tabernacle" - it becomes severed from Christ. But this wouldn't be a loss of salvation because in my opinion a saved person will always retain some of the Holy Spirit, permanently.

There is a lot of things I disagree with here, but the main problem is that you are focusing on "sanctification" yet you are not making the connection that grave sins undo sanctification, they make us unrighteous again. This is precisely why the Reformers insisted upon imputed grace, that way the status of our souls plays no role in us being saved. When you make it a matter of sanctification, then the Catholic side comes up because logically you can make yourself unrighteous through sin, and thus lose salvation. I cant imagine having Christ be of no value to me, me falling from grace and being severed (Jn 15:6; Rom 11:21-22) from Him and think that nothing in regards to salvation changed for me.

I’ve decided to deal here with James’ claim, “A man is justified by what he does, and not by faith alone.”

I mentioned earlier that the human soul/heart is actually a tangible substance. There are many ways to demonstrate this both biblically and logically, but I don’t want to spend the time here – except for one rather decisive argument as follows.

The physical human heart is its own substance, while the soul is its own substance. The term "heart" and "soul" are often used interchangeably but never in reference to the physical heart. You probably already agree but I just wanted to make things clear.

The phrase “sinful nature” never occurs in the Greek. The term that Paul uses is always “the flesh”, and note that, in probably every language, the term flesh (when utilized to refer to an existing substance) NEVER names or describes immaterial substance. It is a distinctively physical term.

I disagree with that, the physical body and soul are intimately linked, temptation originates in our soul, not our physical bodies. Our physical bodies certainly facilitate temptation (ie being tired, hungry, etc makes you lose strength spiritually during temptations).

Now Paul’s most verbose discussion of “the flesh” (the sinful nature) is in Rom 6-8. The decisive verse is 8:3 where Paul says, “Christ appeared in the (physical!) likeness of sinful flesh.” In other words. Christ’s body LOOKED just like what Paul refers to as “the flesh” (the sinful nature of all human beings). This proves that “the flesh” of which Paul had been speaking is the physical human body. This is not to say there is no distinction between body and soul. Rather, it implies that the soul is a tangible substance so perfectly intermixed with the body that the two essentially form one substance called “the body” (just like a glass of milk and water is called a glass of “milk” alone) so that Paul can refer to the soul simply by referring to the body. Thus he asks, “Who will rescue me from this BODY of death” (7:24) as a clear reference to the sinful nature.

Ok, I think we agree here quite a bit, if Im following this correctly.

James was keen on this idea of the body as sinful nature. This is clear from his discussion of the untameable member (the tongue). James doesn’t say, “The immaterial mind causes the tongue to do evil.” No. According to James, the tongue is part of the sinful nature, it IS evil, and in fact CAUSES the rest of the body to sin. The rest of the body, said James, CANNOT tame the tongue. This kind of statement only makes sense if indeed the human body is the soul.

I essentially agree with your body/soul comments, but I dont know what you mean by "it IS evil". You have to be careful because if you are describing some kind of sinful/evil substance then that is heretical (similar to Manichaeanism). I actually think Protestants, without realizing it, turn our fallen nature into an essentially evil/corrupt substance, and that is heretical.

The longstanding error of immaterial mind has caused Christians to dissociate motion – especially bodily motion – from states-of-mind. In other words faith as a state of mind is erroneously presumed to be a stasis – a static condition – rather than a flow of physical substance (the body in motion). This idea of stasis flatly contradicts everything physiologists have discovered about cerebral thought. Cerebral thought – which probably constitutes most of our thoughts – is clearly a flow of matter in the brain (electrochemical streams of activity). And to interrupt those flows physically (e.g. via brain damage) can easily impair physically the mind’s ability to think rationally.

No dispute here.

The upshot of all this is that every “state” of mind – including faith – exists only to the extent of ongoing bodily movement, and hence THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FAITH WITHOUT BODILY WORKS. Bodily motion IS thought, and vice versa. To be justified by faith IS to be justified good works. No distinction can be made between the two. And to do good works is to bring faith into being and/or to complete the summoning of it into existence and thus, “Abraham’s faith was made complete by what he did.” James capitalized on this fact, using it as a basis for dispelling the notion that one can enter heaven without good works. He warns, “A man is justified by what he does, and not by faith alone.” Understand that here he is strategically using the term “faith” in the popular sense of stasis – he is repudiating THAT kind of faith. To paraphrase, James was saying this: “A man is justified by what he does [which is dynamic faith], and not by stasis-faith alone [faith without works].” Indeed Protestants at large have generally approached this verse in the same way, i.e. they see it as drawing a distinction between dynamic faith (faith-that-works) versus stasis faith (faith without works).

I disagree with this interpretation of James, and you are correct, it is a popular Protestant interpretation. It deserves its own thread. I would say that there is such a thing as faith without works, believing that Jesus died and was Resurrected is an act of faith by itself. Again, this really deserves its own thread though.

I would have thought though that you would have put a sanctification spin on this issue, that a man is sanctified by faith and also sacntified by works, thus I was expecting you to say Abraham grew in sanctification as he kept obeying. Im not sure where all this "sinful flesh" stuff, though important, how it fits in with James thus far.

The real question here, though, is this: From whence the impetus of this saving faith (these good works?) If all saving faith (the good works that justify us) were wholly self-generated by a free act of our own willpower, this would be, to some extent, justification by good works rather than justification by faith alone (i.e. grace alone)

It depends on many factors. If you are talking about "our own willpower" in the sense that no grace is required to inspire and enable our will then I would say the Church condemns that view as pelagianism.

Whereas I agree with Protestants that the saving faith (the good works) which justifies us is divinely inspired, i.e. the Holy Spirit MOVES us to believe and to do (He moves us by His love). The result is good works, but these are not really HUMAN good works. It is a divine work.

Your conclusion is very logical (and true even for Catholicism, as Catholics understand it), and in fact a Protestant professor named Norman Shepherd at a major Protestant university was condemned by many Protestants for proposing almost an identical claim that you just made.

In sum, James was simply capitalizing on a particular perspective (faith as bodily movement/good works) in order to make the important point that one cannot enter heaven without good works. Ultimately, it would be a misreading to conclude that James was repudiating Paul’s claim that justification is by faith alone apart from (human) good works.

I agree James and Paul were not contradicting, what really got me off guard here is that I dont see how you incorporated your sanctification/justification theme into this section. Obviously if sanctification and justification are almost interchangable then why werent you saying "justified by works" (2:21) meant growing in sanctification?

 

[Catholic Dude]

(continued)

This statement is a bit silly. Clearly, what I have proposed is a MODIFIED VERSION of justification by faith alone – the central tenet of the Reformation – not a complete repudiation of it.

I feel I understand the classical Protestant position pretty well, and it revolved around the idea that justification did not include an inner transformation. Given that, from what you have posted I see as in conflict (in fact condemned) with what the original Protestants meant by "faith alone", in fact Protestants from a classical perspective would not accept what you have said.

As a Protestant with the Scriptures as your main source, you are obviously free to believe your own version of things. (not that your or any other protestant interpretations are true, and I speak as a Catholic)

Nope. In fact I said that Romans emphasizes imputation. My whole thesis was clearly dependent on imputation, because I said that Abraham, on this basis, was promised a full justification (and thus a heavenly inheritance) unconditionally (based on Christ’s atonement). God will do the work, I argued.

Its been a few days for me, but werent you the one who said sanctification and justification were essentially interchangeable? Further, according to classically minded Protestants, Abraham was justified at one moment in his life, when, through faith, the Righteousness of Christ was imputed and counted in place of Abraham's own unrighteousness. What you just propsed above is similar to a New Perspective take on "justification" in which it doesnt carry the soteriological connotations it traditionally does.

Already answered. The NT depicts us as both holy and sinful at the same time. Logically, this is possible only if part of the heart is holy, and part sinful. The law of noncontradiction affords no other solution. (The sinful nature is the taint often called original sin, i.e., a tendency/addiction to sin into which all men are born).

This is unacceptable in classical Protestant theology, so I cant see how you are being faithful to the pillar of the reformation, imputation. Further, as a Catholic I would disagree with the idea that only "part" of the heart was holy as if light and darkness could co-exist. And this leads into the sinful substance I mentioned above, which is a modified form of the ancient Manichaean heresy.

Scripture regularly speaks with limited force – the force of a statement being limited to the immediate context. For example, “No man has ever seen God” – huh? Many have seen God. Or an example more to the point, “All the old things have passed away, the new is come” – huh? No more sinful nature? The reality is that IN THE CONTEXT OF THE REBORN SECTOR, all the old has passed away. It is now holy. But in regard to the remainder of the heart it is still sinful – but I said this was an oversimplification. I also believe in a middle ground (established by a divine cleansing, a “neutral” sector whereby the Christian has freedom to choose between good and evil, and when it chooses evil, God “cleanses it of ALL unrighteousness” (i.e. He neutralizes it again).

No man has ever seen God, that is a Biblical truth. God is first of all invisible and more importantly cannot be beheld in all His glory apart from a creature being in Heaven, not earth. As for "all the old things have passed away" I think that is in the context of Paul talking about us as new creations, in that sense it is true. Im not sure what this "neutral sector" means, but the way it looks is as if there is a point where the soul is neither good nor evil, and I have serious problems with that notion.

Obviously I am not defending “classical Protestantism.” What I am proposing is a revision of Protestantism which preserves the key element – justification by faith alone – without endorsing Catholicism.

The classical protestant system was built on Justification by imputation by faith alone, imputation is the key concept. The term "faith alone" by itself is not the heart of the Reformation, even Catholics believe in "faith alone" as far as all our actions stem from faith. Given this, your revision, which you have the right as a Protestant to propose, is condemned by the Reformers themselves (and most of Christendom). I personally have never heard anything like it.

And I think you stand on very solid ground in this conclusion. I don’t think Scripture is 100% clear on ANY of these issues. And hence, for me, the decisive factor, on many issues, is simply the question, “What does the Holy Spirit SEEM to be teaching me on this issue?” This kind of tentative conclusion (see my signature) is the best I can do for now, because I don’t yet hear Him as “loud and clear” as did Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Paul (etc).

But this is extremely dangerous and goes against the very principles of the Christian faith, that Christianity contains the Truth. Jesus said if a blind man leads another blind man they will both fall into a ditch. For me as a Catholic, the Church is the "pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15) it is the "city on the hill" which has been led by a succession of Bishops going back to Christ. These Bishops have guided Christianity throughout the ages, and they are to be trusted as those who interpret the Bible for us when controversy arises. If you dont know of Christians who came before you that preach the essence of what you preach then it is safe to say you should rethink your doctrines.

Only because you know so little about my views as yet!

My head is already spinning, I assure you. I have never come across anything like what you have been proposing thus far. In fact it might be better to take this discussion to a new thread.

Just a minor point here. You keep referring to the ordo salutis (justification and then sanctification). You seem to take this to mean that classic Protestantism regards a newborn Christian as potentially justified prior to any sanctification. If so, you are quite mistaken. Ordo Salutis is just a generalized summary of the stages involved in the economy of redemeption, so don’t read too much into it. As I have already said, classic Protestantism – not to mention all later evangelicalism – sees the new birth as an impartation of holiness, “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation. Old things are gone, behold! The new is come.” R.C. Sproul is fond of saying, “Justification and sanctification are two sides of a coin.” Not only is this made clear in the Protestant Reformed creeds, in fact it actually flows directly from Calvin’s assumptions. Calvin held that total depravity is what hinders initial repentance. As long as the sinner remains depraved, he will never repent, because he is hostile to God. The Holy Spirit must change his heart, causing him to love God and thus to have a desire to obey. And since a state of love fulfills the law (Rom 13), this is holiness/sanctification. But virtually all Protestants, including Calvin, have realized that the initial sanctification is incomplete sanctification (the sinful nature persists in some sense). Hence there is an ongoing process of sanctification subsequent to regeneration, as expressed in the Ordo Salutis (regeneration first, and then sanctification) but you shouldn’t take this to mean that Protestants divest the new birth of sanctification. (Perhaps I am misunderstanding you).

Classical Protestantism has always held that saving faith is faith-that-works, and that faith without works is dead. Justification and sanctification are inextricably interwined in the classical view, although not interchangeable. Again, I see this is as missing the mark slightly, because in my view Paul sometimes does use the term justification interchangeably with sanctification.

I will concede there may be a sense in which classic Protestantism makes justification logically prior to initial sanctification, but not temporally prior.

I would consider your whole description essentially orthodox classical Protestant. My focus on the Ordo Salutis was the justification then sanctification aspect, you are correct that there is more to the OS than that, but the main issue was justification by imputation (no sanctification involved) then actual sanctification.

Regarding the "regeneration, justification, sanctification" point you raised, I have brought up this issue as well yet no Protestants will seem to address it. The fact is regeneration is itself an inner sanctification, thus for them to go on to believe in justification by imputation doesnt make sense because there is no need for an imputed righteousness.

I'll assume you are not including my theology in this conclusion, because I myself DID provide a theology which allows for Abraham growing in justification, and I did this without renouncing the basic idea of justification by faith alone apart from (human) works.
But yes, you are probably right that the assumptions of classical Protestantism afford no such solution, nor any solution at all to this problem.

I was not including your theology in those comments, in fact Im still confused on what your theology entails.
Given this I think it is better to state your own views fresh on a new thread, there is too much to sift through (over 175 posts) and too many new ideas to deal with this far into the discussion. (If you make a new thread send me a PM and invite me).

 

[JAL]

The physical human heart is its own substance, while the soul is its own substance. The term "heart" and "soul" are often used interchangeably but never in reference to the physical heart.

Obviously.

I disagree with that, the physical body and soul are intimately linked, temptation originates in our soul, not our physical bodies. Our physical bodies certainly facilitate temptation (ie being tired, hungry, etc makes you lose strength spiritually during temptations

]
You are assuming that what is called mind is intangible. I disagree. It is clearly physical. Otherwise, explain to me how brain damage physically impairs the mind’s ability to think rationally. This is a logical impossibility, clearly, if the mind is intangible. After all, the brain is a mechanical device and, as such, capable of only mechanical causality. It cannot have an impact on intangible substances – the very notion of it is absurd. The famous Reformed theologian Charles Hodge is one of the few honest enough to admit that he had no solution for this apparent contradiction. Most Protestant theologians just ignore the issue altogether.

What now of Catholics? The official Catholic position enunciated by Aquinas is that body and soul form not a mixture but a compound (a new reality). In a mixture of A and B, substances A and B still remain and are identifiable as such and thus we still have two substances (and this is my view of how body and soul are joined). But in a compound, A and B are no longer discernible, for now have C (one substance). This is the Catholic view. True, Catholicism admits that God can separate them (even as we can break down natural compounds), but nonetheless it is a compound C (no longer discernible as A and B).

Now what can we say of this one term C? Try to touch yourself. Did you succeed? Yes, which implies it is tangible. That C is therefore tangible. Therefore, as a Catholic, you are simply not entitled to claim that sin originates “in the immaterial” or that thought-processes are immaterial. Sorry.

BTW, “tangible” for me simply means “capable of colliding with solid objects” – I am not saying that the soul is arranged as protons, neutrons, and elctrons, but it is tangible.

I essentially agree with your body/soul comments, but I dont know what you mean by "it IS evil". You have to be careful because if you are describing some kind of sinful/evil substance then that is heretical (similar to Manichaeanism). I actually think Protestants, without realizing it, turn our fallen nature into an essentially evil/corrupt substance, and that is heretical.

The tongue is a mixture of tangible soul and protoplasm. Since the soul is evil, the tongue is evil. I am not saying that matter is inherently evil. For example, the protoplasm itself isn’t evil since it has no volition or thought-processes. But the soul does, it willed evil in Adam, and is therefore stained by consequence of its choice (I can’t discuss the Fall here). This is called original sin. It is not the heresy of Manichaenism – it is rather the view of church father Tertullian.

And this leads into the sinful substance I mentioned above, which is a modified form of the ancient Manichaean heresy.

Nope. The REASON Manichaenism is to be regarded as heretical as that it construes non-volitional matter as “evil” which is a contradiction in terms. If there are physical substances which ARE volitional, and which HAVE tainted themselves by sinning, this is a whole new ballgame. Please come off the pretense of lumping me with a self-contradictory doctrine which I clearly repudiate. Surely you can do better than that.




I wrote: “Whereas I agree with Protestants that the saving faith (the good works) which justifies us is divinely inspired, i.e. the Holy Spirit MOVES us to believe and to do (He moves us by His love). The result is good works, but these are not really HUMAN good works. It is a divine work.” You seem to say that Protestants would condemn this as heretical. Friend, if that’s your view of Protestantism, you are grossly mistaken.

I agree James and Paul were not contradicting, what really got me off guard here is that I dont see how you incorporated your sanctification/justification theme into this section. Obviously if sanctification and justification are almost interchangable then why werent you saying "justified by works" (2:21) meant growing in sanctification.

Any growth in justification is growth in sanctification – I don’t see any ambiguity here.

I feel I understand the classical Protestant position pretty well, and it revolved around the idea that justification did not include an inner transformation. Given that, from what you have posted I see as in conflict (in fact condemned) with what the original Protestants meant by "faith alone", in fact Protestants from a classical perspective would not accept what you have said

Well as for Protestants not accepting it – well duh. Again, it’s obvious I am not defending full-blown Protestantism but merely justification by faith alone. And as for Protestant “justification” not including an inner transformation, agreed as already said. Justification and Sanctification are not deemed interchangeable in classic P. Clearly, my point is that Protestant regeneration IS a sanctification, regardless of what “justification” means.

Its been a few days for me, but werent you the one who said sanctification and justification were essentially interchangeable

Yes. Don’t see any problem here. You go on to repeat the obvious, that my view differs from classical P. Well duh, I myself said so at the outset. Could we get past this fact and move on? The real issue is this. YOU want to believe that Abraham’s case refutes justification by faith alone. MY solution to the problem of Abraham belies this. THAT’S the main issue. The FACT that this isn’t classical P is somewhat moot to my commentary.

The fact is regeneration is itself an inner sanctification, thus for them to go on to believe in justification by imputation doesnt make sense because there is no need for an imputed righteousness

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.

If you dont know of Christians who came before you that preach the essence of what you preach then it is safe to say you should rethink your doctrines.

Nope. That’s like saying, if we lived in the time of Gallileo, that he must be wrong in rejecting geocentrism, since no one prior to him so taught. How absurd.

 

[Catholic Christian]

Justification can be summed up in two words: Divine Sonship.

We are adopted sons in the Father, and the Father is fathering children. If I were two years old and still loading my diapers that would be OK. However, if I were 20 years old and still loading my diapers that would be bad. We are expected to grow. Justification is not a one time juridical event, but rather it is an ongoing dynamic process. This is a key difference between the Catholic and protestant understanding of justification. But, this IS by Grace Alone.

When Paul speaks of works of the law he means works of the Torah. (As you know, the Hebrew word for "Law" is "Torah".) If you read "Torah" whenever you see "Law", things will look a whole lot different and become a much clearer. We agree, we are not saved by works of the Torah. However, we are required to do what ever works Christ commanded us to do.

Authentic Faith is, as Paul says, "Faith working through love". And we can only do this by
Grace Alone

 

[sunlover1]

Justification can be summed up in two words: Divine Sonship.

We are adopted sons in the Father, and the Father is fathering children. If I were two years old and still loading my diapers that would be OK. However, if I were 20 years old and still loading my diapers that would be bad. We are expected to grow. Justification is not a one time juridical event, but rather it is an ongoing dynamic process. This is a key difference between the Catholic and protestant understanding of justification. But, this IS by Grace Alone.

When Paul speaks of works of the law he means works of the Torah. (As you know, the Hebrew word for "Law" is "Torah".) If you read "Torah" whenever you see "Law", things will look a whole lot different and become a much clearer. We agree, we are not saved by works of the Torah. However, we are required to do what ever works Christ commanded us to do.

Authentic Faith is, as Paul says, "Faith working through love". And we can only do this by
Grace Alone

Amen and the work is faith alone?

28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do,
that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them,
This is the work of God,
that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.http://christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=6757607#_ftn1
http://christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=6757607#_ftnref1

 

[Silenus]

I’m going to skip some things to try to focus down the conversation to the things that I have problems with or that I think are relevant toward why I would or would not accept a catholic view of things. So, I’m going to skip over some of the Galatians and other verses because, as I said, these verses do not make a decisive case.

Well it is a Biblical fact that people living are called "righteous" so if you are saying this is exclusively a future thing implying Heaven means there is a contradiction. Further there are passages that I mentioned in my last post like Heb 12:23 mentions "righteous men made perfect" supporting the idea of being righteous and also able to be perfected (in Heaven).

Further as I already said, these people already had the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Gal 3:2-3) so there was a change in their soul and thus to put this "righteousness" as exclusively a future thing doesn’t make sense.

I agree, there is a tension here. Is it possible that Paul used the word in different ways in different contexts? I would like to not go that route because it kinda takes the anchor off the boat. This is why I’m still finding Wright’s definition appealing. Because it does seem to sooth out all these issues. A two context approach could be used if referring to the righteousness that comes by faith as opposed to the perfect righteousness of God. The bible, most often as far as I can tell, by using phrasing such as counted, etc, seems to make me lean toward Wright’s view.

That is improper exegesis and I cannot accept it. You are using your idea of another passage to turn this warning into no consequence. Paul says he warns them, a warning means danger, and says that if they engage in those sins they will not inherit the kingdom. There is also no such Biblical distinction as the Protestant idea of "lifestyle" vs "every once in a while", adultery is adultery, even if you do it once every 2 years, it still falls under Paul's warning

The same argumentation applies to your concept of the gift of perseverance. Paul warns those of the danger of not persevering, yet you have indicated that this is a gift that they have either been given or not given. If it is a gift given, why does Paul spend all this time warning and admonishing them to persevere? The obvious solution is that Paul admonishes those who are ignorant of their faithlessness. If your argument works against Paul’s warnings here, it works against your concept of the gift of perseverance just as well, for that also does not depend on man. Protestants believe as you do that the elect repent and the non-elect don’t. Except, this makes no sense if you can lose your salvation. If you don’t go to heaven, you have not been saved of anything, and so those who haven’t been given the gift of persevere are not saved.

He certainly did lose his salvation when he committed those sins, and there is nothing "stretch" about it. He must ask for forgiveness and there are references to him needing the guilt removed and his soul cleansed. Anything else is saying he committed those sins, and in fact any Christian can commit those sins, and they don’t have to worry about anything.

Is it a Scriptural stretch to say murder and adultery are sin (1 Jn 3:15)?

This is the first I have heard this. If David lost his salvation here, how was a non-conditional covenant established with David before this event? Again, If David was given the gift of repentance, he did not lose his salvation because he, with grace through faith, repents of his sin. Because those who god justifies he will glorify. I still don’t see how you can talk of a god given gift of repentance and in the same breath talk about the loss of salvation. It seems pure double speak to me. It seems more likely that, when Paul admonishes the church, he does so knowing that some are not elect within the body. And if Catholics believe in a gift of perseverance, then they have to believe the same is true, that there are non-elect unsaved from sin and hell people in the congregation.

This is the problem with Protestant theology; they must re interpret the rest of Scripture to fit Justification by Imputation theology. The Reformed position is especially interesting because logically there is no such thing as sin in their theology, the world is divided into believers who can do no wrong and unbelievers who can do nothing right. If you were to go out and commit adultery then you would have to believe you are still saved, while if an unbeliever were to do that he would be earning himself a spot in hell.

This is pure misinterpretation of protestant theology, see Jal’s post for details. I do not mean this in an offensive way, but If you believe this, you misunderstand Protestantism. Protestants believe that true faith is accompanied by works and that is why Paul and elders and fellow Christians admonish as iron sharpens iron. There are some in the churches who are not saved and who need to have their blindness removed. Apparently Catholics believe the same thing; except that your definition of salvation doesn’t necessarily include heaven . . . I honestly don’t understand that.

I don’t know how much more of this I can take

Well, I’m not the only one who is baffled by your use of Mark, so maybe you’d like to dig into the charity box and condescend to explain why I would take a verse that seems to indicate that salvation is more important than earthly pleasures and use it to preach that people lose their salvation.

When Reformed talk about "perseverance" it doesn’t make sense. There is no "persevering" when the possibility of falling doesn’t exist. If you are in a pit, you are "saved" when a rope comes down to pull you up, but the potential for falling back in still exists, only by reaching the top and being pulled out are you saved in the future and final sense of the term (in Heaven).

But, again, if perseverance is a gift from God, then you again must use this argument against yourself. For those given this gift of perseverance, there is no chance of falling back.

The Catholic model has salvation as a past, present and future reality. You are saved when you enter into a relationship with Jesus, but if you abandon that relationship down the road you lose your salvation. The Matt 24:12f passage I quoted says "those who stand firm to the end will be saved".

Yes, will be saved, not are saved. Salvation seems to me to always indicate acceptance into the heavenly kingdom, not acceptance into the covenant community. To say some one is saved but doesn’t go to heaven is to essentially say that they are not saved.

that those Predestined to Glory will repent should they fall into sin.

I again do not see how this differs from perseverance of the saints.

In the end Paul was wasting his breath because if salvation was never on the line then warning them and yelling at them was superfluous.

Places like 1 Cor 10:1-12 are clear warnings taking the Israelites as an example. They were "saved" when God led them out of Egypt, but many of them sinned and were condemned down the road.

Again, that same argument applies to Paul’s admonishments to persevere, if perseverance is a gift of God to the elect.
The Israelites were baptized in the cloud, they were in the covenant community, but God always reserves a remnant for Himself. Apparently, although I didn’t know it till this conversations, Catholics believe essentially the same thing.

Classical Protestant theology teaches they do not occur at the same time. The ordo salutis states justification then sanctification. Justification does not depend on sanctification, though sanctification depends on justification already having occurred.

I’ll look it up again, but I’m pretty sure Jal is right on this one.

Just a warning, you could end up on the "dark side" (Catholicism) if you are not careful. Already you seem to be questioning classical Protestant teachings/concepts.

Not to squash your hope, but I’d probably consider, and have considered in the past, Eastern Orthodoxy.

You have an incorrect view of grace then. God allowed Adam to fall from grace, God allows Christians to sin. Your fundamental view of grace is external and imputed.

But, according to you, God does not allow everyone to repent, only some are given that gift. This is the point I was making, If repentance is a gift by grace, then those who do not repent do so because they were not given that gift. Isn’t this what you argued?

They bought into the lie thinking it would make them more happy. Nobody does something that they think will hurt them. People don’t sin trying to damn themselves.

They bought it knowing it as a lie. That is Romans one and two. The only place for ignorance of sin in scripture is during moments of violent contagion ala Rene Girard. The knew the truth and exchanged it for a lie.

One was that people can grow in justification (Abraham) .

I agree with this, except I’d say they can grow in sanctification which, according to you, means the same thing. They are interchangeable, which leads to another problem.

and the other is people can lose justification and regain it (David).

I disagree with this. In fact, I see a problem here is Catholics view the terms justification and sanctification as interchangeable. It seems that Paul uses these terms distinctively.

1Co 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

He’s not saying you were justified, you were justified, he’s not engaging in tautology and repeating himself. Paul does make a distinction, so I think it is incumbent upon us to determine what the distinction is.