Catholic vs. Protestant: Justification

[Silenus]

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.

This is well phrased . . . I affirm this.

 

[JAL]

Catholic Dude:

I wanted to provide a reference for my claim that Catholicism construes man, not as a mixture of two elements body and soul, but a compounding of those two elements into a third and new reality (such that the original two elements are no longer present as such). “The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the ‘form’ of the body…spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, article 365). Thus we no longer have A and B but a third term C.

Now with regard to Christ’s statement, “If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, rather than the whole body be cast into hell” I admit that this verse does seem, on the face of it, to construe believers as prone to losing their salvation. But if this verse really applies to believers, I should wonder why the Catholic church doesn’t advocate stricter penance at confession. The priest should say, “You repeatedly commit adultery due to lust of the eyes. You are in danger of hell – go pluck them out.”

But was this statement really addressed to believers? Again, I say, not necessarily. The gospels are not fully chronological, and therefore we may reasonably conclude that Christ actually made this statement during the sermon on the mount (see Matthew’s version). Both believers and unbelievers were present, most likely.

 

[Catholic Dude]

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.

I dont see how you agreed with my "heart" and "soul" being interchangeable but not referring to the physical heart...yet here you appear to be saying "mind" is tangible/physical. The terms "mind" and "heart" and "soul" are interchangable and not in reference to the physical brain or physical heart.

I must be totally misunderstanding you, because I believe the tangible body does have an impact on the intangible soul. (Im not a theologian, but Im pretty sure this is Catholic).

That is why I said above that being physically hungry and physically tired and physically in pain directly weaken your spiritual strength and that is why it is easier to fall into temptation and sin when you are hungry/tired/hurt.

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).

Im not too informed on this issue, but my gut instinct tells me this your description isnt quite right. I dont agree that two substances come together to form a new single substance. A compound in chemistry is two (or more) elements coming together, but a third element is not formed. Thus I would guess the soul and body coming together would be similar to Hydrogen and Oxygen coming together to form water. You cant directly distinguish the H and O but they are still distinct (and clearly so from God's perspective).

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.

But you require a rational soul to sin, animals and plants dont have that. Thus it is the act of the rational soul to sin, but the physical directly plays into how the soul responds. You can sin by thinking something bad, not even moving physically. The fallen angels didnt have physical bodies and were able to sin.

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.

This sounds like a contradiction. Tangible to me means it is made out of physical material, thus the soul is not tangible as far as I can tell. Otherwise it wouldnt be able to touch every part of my body while my physical body takes up just as much space as when Im dead (the soul separates).

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.

Your first sentence is very confusing, the tongue is a mixture? When the Bible talks about controlling our tongue it means your soul causes you to perform the action of speaking an evil thought. The soul is the "pilot" of the physical body. The issue of the fall will probably have to come out some time, I already talked about it earlier in this thread to others.

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.

Are you talking about "matter" as in physical matter? The "evil substance" issue Im pretty sure is first and foremost concerned with the spiritual. The way I understand this aspect of the Manichaean heresy would be there is part of the soul that is evil and part that is good.

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 as a Catholic consider your comments right pretty close to Catholicism. In otherwords faith itself is a good work inspired by the Holy Spirit. What you are saying is a logical conclusion from Protestantism as well, but the controversy is these works and the moment of justification. There was a man at a Reformed college named Norman Shepherd, google it, and there was a controversy because he said essentially what you did.

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

So James 2:21 is truly growing in justification. Classical Protestantism would not accept that concept. Catholicism would, and apparently you do too.

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.

The part in red does not make sense. The very heart of Protestantism is Justification by IMPUTATION by Faith Alone. If you take out the concept of imputation then the SLOGAN/DOCTRINE "justification by faith alone" means nothing and was NOT what the Protestants fought for. It would be equivalent to the founding fathers of America writing up the Constitution, but you disagreeing and rejecting the contents of the Constitution, and in the end saying you want to support the Constitution but not the "full blown" Constitution. All you are left with is a blank document with the word "Constitution" in the title.

Clearly, my point is that Protestant regeneration IS a sanctification, regardless of what “justification” means.

The key here is "a" sanctification, true. But it is not "regardless" of what justification means, imputation is required precisely because there is nothing good in the soul. However, I have yet to hear a Reformed Protestant give me a coherent answer for how regeneration can be a sanctification and yet still have the need for imputation. It is a discontinuity, first the soul is transformed via regeneration, then grace is imputed externally and doesnt touch the soul at justification, then the soul is back to being transformed again. From my readings, this very issue is why Lutherans reject the Reformed idea of regeneration and rather Lutherans believe regeneration comes after justification.

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.

But Im sticking with the historical issue here, the very heart of the historical event called the Reformation, that is justification by imputation by faith alone. If that concept is wrong, then the Reformation was wrong. Whether you come around 500 years later and propose your own variation of "justification by faith alone" doesnt change the fact the Reformation of 500 years ago was un-Biblical and sinful.

It is illogical in my mind for you not to agree with the Reformers, yet use their slogan. I fully accept the fact you feel you have come up with a system that explains teachings like justification in a way you believe harmonizes the Bible better than the Catholic system or classical Protestant system. Im doing my best to try and understand your new system and am giving my feedback as I understand it.

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

Of course there is no need for imputation if your soul is sanctified...you dont seem to be making sense. As for the issue of "past sin", that is even more confusing considering regeneration eliminated your past sins when you converted. There is no need to "cover" something that is already clean.

And your last line has my head spinning. You just got through saying justification and sanctification are interchangeable, now you are advocating imputation?

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.

The problem with your analogy is that it doesnt deal with the issue of salvation. Catholics and Protestants believe Jesus taught one Gospel. Catholics believe this Gospel has been preserved even to this day, Protestants believe the Church became corrupt some time and thus the "Reformers" came to recover the lost Gospel. Now, if you come 500 years after the Reformers and disagree with the heart of their theology, imputation, then there is a problem. You just admitted your tadition was wrong. So either you are left with truly recovering the Gospel which even the Reformers couldnt recover, or you go back in history and dtermine either the Catholic camp or the Protestant camp got it right.

 

[Catholic Dude]

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.

I dont think Paul used the word in radically different ways, and I would especially think Paul didnt have righteousness used in one context to mean imputed and in another context to mean infused.

I havnt gone into enough reading of NTW to know his view that well. All I know is that from the articles I have read from him is that he rejects the idea of imputation and that his use of the term "justification" is different from the traditional Protestant usage.

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.

The Catholic Church teaches that both Predestination and Free Will are both true. It is a great mystery as to how, but they do. This would confirm passages like Gal 6:7-9 and 2 Peter 1:5-11 which mention that to make your calling and election sure you must do these good works because "if you do you will never fall" implying you can fall. Your actions play into God's plan.

I totally disagree with the idea Paul admonishes unbelievers, he makes no indication of that and rather makes it clear he is mad a the Christians turning to lives of sin. It would be a waste of time for him to warn unbelievers in a letter directed at Christians.

One aspect of Perseverance that is very easy to see is the fact that God ultimately controls when you die. Thus He can preserve the life of a person who fell into sin and give them a chance to repent, or He can not give them perseverance and come like a thief after they fall into sin and be subject them to punishment (Rev 2:4-5; Rev 3:3; Heb 10:26-29).

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.

I dont see where this "non conditional covenant" plays into David's personal salvation. What doesnt make sense is you talk about the "gift of repentance" yet the very definition of repentance means to reconcile your damaged relationship with God. If a person cant lose salvation then repentance means nothing.

As for your claims that "it seems more likely" that Paul was directing his warnings against unbelievers, the fact is he doesnt talk like that. In 2 cor 12:21 for example he is sad because they turned to lives of sin and "have still not repented". If your theory was correct we would expect Paul to say "those of you in this lifestyle, you are unbelievers, turn and accept Jesus as your Savior"...but that isnt how he talks. In places like 2 Cor 11:3 he talks about him worrying that they may turn from their pure devotion of Christ to another Gospel...does that make sense if they cant lose their salvation and Paul is really talking at an unbeliever?

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 often get charged with misrepresentation (or worse) when I bring up this point, yet I have yet to see a Protestant explain where I went wrong.

Here is my line of thinking: Places like Gal 5:19-21 say adultery can cause you to lose Heaven, you say that is only in reference to unbelievers.
NOW, the question arises, can you as a Christian commit adultery? If you say no, then that means if you ever commit adultery you were never a Christain. If you say it is possible for a Christian to commit adultery, then we have to ask why does adultery condemn in Gal 5:19-21 for unbelievers, but not for believers?...the only answer is that you dont believe in "sin", rather the world is divided into believers who cant do anything wrong and unbelievers who cant do anything right.

One of my favorite verses to bring up here though is 1 Tim 5:8 which talks about a Christian who stops supporting his family, Paul says they have "denied the faith and are worse than an unbeliever"...however that is impossible because in your theology there is nothing worse than an unbeliever.

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.

The verse is saying salvation is more important than earthly pleasures, if something causes you to sin (eg alcohol) it is better to miss out than to put your soul in jeopardy by falling into that sin. This same concept is taught in Mat 5:27-30 that this applies for cases of adultery...but it all goes back to whether you believe in sin or not. If you believe you are saved, yet also capable of committing adultery then that passage logically applies to you.

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.

That is not what Perseverance means. Perseverance means that the possibility of falling does exist and that IF you fall you will be reconciled before death. Perseverance doesnt make sense if the possibility of falling doesnt exist.
It would be as absurd as telling a human to persevere as a human, well that doesnt make sense because they cant become unhuman.

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.

There is truth to this line of thinking and the fact is the only time salvation is secured is when and if your reach Heaven, but if you believe the idea of "will be saved" then you cant claim you are saved in your theology. The fact is the Bible talks about salvation in a past, present and future tense, Catholics try to harmonize this and it is best seen as first entering into a relationship with God, growing in that relationship, and persevering in that relationship to the end.

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

It does not differ from Perseverance of the Saints, but again that is talking about perseverance of the saints according to the traditional Catholic teaching. Protestants hijacked the term/concept of "perseverance of the saints" and made it mean something else, perseverance in an environment when falling is impossible and thus the concept of perseverance logically doesnt exist.

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.

Preserving a remnant doesnt mean other were never saved. It means some either avoided falling or repented before God decided to judge them.

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

Though there is more to the Ordo Salutis than I mentioned, the specific events of justification and sanctification do not occur at the same time, and in fact sanctification is dependent on justification already having taken place.

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

Coming to Rome from Protestantism through the back door is acceptable.

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?

I dont remember arguing that specific thing, but if I did I was including those Christians who fell into sin, not just unbelievers. Also I think we were talking about how Christians are still able to sin, despite the fact they have the Holy Spirit in them.

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.

They did not know the truth in the sense they were perfectly enlightened, they knew the truth in that it was presented to a degree to them, and that is also why faith is necessaryd. A person doesnt sin with the intention of damning themself, they sin thinking they will get away with it and the sin will make them happy. A child can be told not to drink toxic chemicals, but maybe the shiny bottle is appealing or something so they do it. They know they are not supposed to, but they do it, they DONT know that it is extremely dangerous. Only when they get older and grow in knowledge to they realize it is dangerous and for that reason not drink.

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.

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

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.

I dont see Paul using them distinctively, at least not in the sharply divided way Protestants do. In fact places like 2 Thes 2:12 and Acts 15:9-11 show an unbeliever getting saved by being sanctified or purified, yet in the same situations elsewhere Paul calls this justification. Acts 26:17-18 is a perfect example where you could easily substitute the term justified in that sentence with sanctified.

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.

He is using three different terms to reflect essentially the same thing taking place, you were "washed" (cleansed in your soul), you were "sanctified" (cleansed in your soul), you were "justified" (cleansed in your soul, received the indwelling of the holy Spirit, Titus 3:5-7). How would you explain "washed" and "sanctified" as being fundamentally different with no overlap?

 

[Catholic Dude]

Catholic Dude:

I wanted to provide a reference for my claim that Catholicism construes man, not as a mixture of two elements body and soul, but a compounding of those two elements into a third and new reality (such that the original two elements are no longer present as such). “The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the ‘form’ of the body…spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, article 365). Thus we no longer have A and B but a third term C.

Here is the full quote:

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the "form" of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.
​

You are misunderstanding Catholic theology, they "two elements" still remain, but coming together it is now known as a human. Just like Hydrogen and Oxygen come together to form water, yet the Hydrogen and Oxygen still are there and distinct.

Now with regard to Christ’s statement, “If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, rather than the whole body be cast into hell” I admit that this verse does seem, on the face of it, to construe believers as prone to losing their salvation. But if this verse really applies to believers, I should wonder why the Catholic church doesn’t advocate stricter penance at confession. The priest should say, “You repeatedly commit adultery due to lust of the eyes. You are in danger of hell – go pluck them out.”

Because that would be self mutilation. That passage doesnt mean literally cut of your hand or eye, it means take things out of your life, no matter how much you like them, that cause you to sin. It is better to miss out on things like alcohol, tv, food (eg 1 Cor 8:7-11), etc than to keep them and fall into the sins they can bring and the judgement those sins result in (also note passages like Heb 10:26-29).

But was this statement really addressed to believers? Again, I say, not necessarily. The gospels are not fully chronological, and therefore we may reasonably conclude that Christ actually made this statement during the sermon on the mount (see Matthew’s version). Both believers and unbelievers were present, most likely.

Christs words were first and foremost directed to believers, those are the only ones who cared what He had to say, and its not like they cant fall into those sins. The Sermon on the Mount, Mat 5-7 was talking especially to believers. If not then Jesus was holding unbelievers to higher standards than believers.

 

[sunlover1]

I
Coming to Rome from Protestantism through the back door is acceptable.

Why would we want to come to, something we left?
The reasons that I left havent changed yet.

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

Can you please rephrase this, I dont understand.

He is using three different terms to reflect essentially the same thing taking place, you were "washed" (cleansed in your soul), you were "sanctified" (cleansed in your soul), you were "justified" (cleansed in your soul, received the indwelling of the holy Spirit, Titus 3:5-7). How would you explain "washed" and "sanctified" as being fundamentally different with no overlap?

But sanctified means set apart,
justified means made righteous,
and washed means cleaned up.
Those are totally different things arent they.
I can set apart a fine china set, but yet not
clean it up OR justify it.
I can clean up a set of china, yet not set it
apart (then it's going to get all dirty again though)

 

[sunlover1]

BTW, exellent work on those posts terry.
I dont know that I agree always, but they're
very nicely written.

sunlover

 

[Rick Otto]

he's not terry. that would be "Catholic Christian"

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

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

Can you please rephrase this, I dont understand.

Hi CD.
Can you also explain that to me also and where you came up with anything about "abraham's soul being corrupt"? Thanks.

http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/lazarus.htm

Luke 16:24 And he sounding said: "Father Abraham! be you merciful to-me! and send Lazarus!, that he should be dipping the tip of the finger of him of water, and should be cooling down the tongue of me,--that I am being pained/odunwmai <3600> (5743) in the flame, this."...................
29 Saying to him, Abraham: "They are having Moses and the Prophets: Let them hearken to them"!

 

[JAL]

Here is the full quote:

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the "form" of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.
​

You are misunderstanding Catholic theology, they "two elements" still remain, but coming together it is now known as a human. Just like Hydrogen and Oxygen come together to form water, yet the Hydrogen and Oxygen still are there and distinct.

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

 

[JAL]

Christs words were first and foremost directed to believers, those are the only ones who cared what He had to say, and its not like they cant fall into those sins. The Sermon on the Mount, Mat 5-7 was talking especially to believers. If not then Jesus was holding unbelievers to higher standards than believers.

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

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

 

[JAL]

I dont see how you agreed with my "heart" and "soul" being interchangeable but not referring to the physical heart...yet here you appear to be saying "mind" is tangible/physical.

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

 

[JAL]

Your first sentence is very confusing, the tongue is a mixture? When the Bible talks about controlling our tongue it means your soul causes you to perform the action of speaking an evil thought. The soul is the "pilot" of the physical body. The issue of the fall will probably have to come out some time, I already talked about it earlier in this thread to others.

The tongue is a mixture of protoplasm and tangible soul. I was quite clear on this point. And stop reading YOUR theology into what James said. Don&#8217;t put words in his mouth. James didn&#8217;t say it was an issue of the soul controlling the tongue. That&#8217;s what YOU say, not what HE said. James said that the tongue is evil &#8211; which means he is either a Manicheean (a heretic) or he held to my view that the tongue is in part the tangible soul. Logically, those are the only two choices you have.

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


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

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

 

[JAL]

It is illogical in my mind for you not to agree with the Reformers, yet use their slogan.

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

I think the real problem here is that you don&#8217;t understand the slogan. You have been writing in a way that suggests it means &#8220;faith-without-works&#8221; when in fact it means &#8220;faith-that-works.&#8221; These works are inspired by grace, and therefore they are not human works. To God be the glory for the works. (I also believe that there is such a thing as human works, but these do not save us). Justification by faith alone also means that the specific quantity of good works, and the specific quantity of sin, is not relevant to salvation. Let me elaborate. Once saved, I am not &#8220;more likely&#8221; to be saved simply because I did more good works than my fellow Christians. Salvation rests on the cross, so anyone who has some grace (i.e. any Christian) is saved. Once saved, I am not &#8220;less likely&#8221; to be saved because I sin more than other Christians. Since I agree with all these aspects of justification by faith alone - which are the major aspects of the doctrine - I am warranted in using the slogan.



And I am not going on your wild goose chase to find out what Norman Shepherd was criticized for. I really couldn&#8217;t care less. I am quite satisified that I understand the major similarities and differences betwixt my theology and that of the Reformation. That&#8217;s all I need to know, at the moment. If there&#8217;s something else you feel I need to know, make your point and give me a link to back it up.

 

[JAL]

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

I think you are using a couple of terms ambiguously (in the hopes of charging us with contradiction). as a result, my patience is wearing thin. In this case, the word here is &#8220;need&#8221; (of imputation). In one sense, we will ALWAYS need imputation. There will never be a day in heaven where I can do without it, because without it, I am back to reprobrate status. So there is a sense in which a sanctified person still &#8220;needs&#8221; imputation. But this isn&#8217;t to say that a sanctified person still &#8220;needs&#8221; imputation (in the sense of needing something not yet given to him). If he is sanctified, then he does indeed have the imputation needed. Thus he both &#8220;needs&#8221; imputation and doesn&#8217;t &#8220;need&#8221; it, depending on how the word &#8216;need&#8217; is being used, so please stop using the term ambiguously. This is the Protestant view (and I agree with it).


The point can be stated thus. Suppose I have a huge supply of fresh water. Somone asks me, &#8220;Do you NEED some water?&#8221; &#8220;No, I have plenty, thank you.&#8221;
But this does really mean I don&#8217;t need water to survive? Clearly, I will ALWAYS need water (at least in this life). It is this ambiguity which you keep trying to capitalize on, in your insinuations of contradiction.



I agree with the Protestant view described above, except to say that, strictly speaking, it is probably true only of the reborn sector (imputation is probably NOT a true predicate of the sinful nature). Let me clarify my view. Faith comes by hearing (Rom 10:17). Hearing what? Promises. &#8220;The promises were spoken to Abraham and to [us] his seed&#8221; (gal 3:16). During conversion, the Holy Spirit began to promise you (as He did to Abraham) a heavenly inheritance. You understand this to mean that the WHOLE of you will go to heaven, and though it is (logically) possible that you are hearing Him incorrectly, I think you heard Him aright.

Thus even though the sinful nature (the rest of you) is not yet regenerated, and has not yet imputation, nonetheless it is (apparently) DESTINED for imputation (and sanctification) by virtue of the Promise (assuming you heard Him correctly).

As for the issue of "past sin", that is even more confusing considering regeneration eliminated your past sins when you converted. There is no NEED to "cover" something that is already clan.

Again, that same ambiguous usage of the word &#8220;need&#8221;. See the discussion above.

And your last line has my head spinning. You just got through saying justification and sanctification are interchangeable, now you are advocating imputation?

See the above.

I have yet to hear a Reformed Protestant give me a coherent answer for how regeneration can be a sanctification and yet still have the NEED for imputation.

See the above on &#8220;need&#8221;. The pattern with you is becoming obvious, you are trying so hard to find a contradiction that you resort to a sloppy usage of terminology. This is why my patience is wearing thin.

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

 

[sunlover1]

BTW, exellent work on those posts terry.
I dont know that I agree always, but they're
very nicely written.

sunlover

he's not terry. that would be "Catholic Christian"

Thanks Rick.

Sorry Catholic Dude, but my questions still remain.
Dang, I'm not with the program today.

 

[JAL]

The problem with your analogy [about Gallileo] is that it doesnt deal with the issue of salvation. Catholics and Protestants believe Jesus taught one Gospel. Catholics believe this Gospel has been preserved even to this day, Protestants believe the Church became corrupt some time and thus the "Reformers" came to recover the lost Gospel. Now, if you come 500 years after the Reformers and disagree with the heart of their theology, imputation, then there is a problem. You just admitted your tadition was wrong. So either you are left with truly recovering the Gospel which even the Reformers couldnt recover, or you go back in history and dtermine either the Catholic camp or the Protestant camp got it right.

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

Nope. The essence of the gospel is the Holy Spirit in the hearts of men (speaking promises). It is not the DOCTRINES of men. Even if men got the doctrine all wrong, the church still exists. Doctrine is valuable for the church to achieve maximal membership and growth, but the Kingdom doesn’t stand or fall on the teachings of men.

Places like Gal 5:19-21 say adultery can cause you to lose Heaven

As I said before, Galatians is dealing principally with sanctification, the reception of the Inheritance (the Promised Land which is Christ) in THIS LIFE. As in Joshua’s day, which was an illustration, it is possible to obtain pieces of the land without possessing the whole land. Paul’s statement is therefore applicable to both believers and unbelievers. Unbelievers truly never will inherit the land – in any sense. Believers will not inherit the land either, if they walk in sin – in this life. Like so many similar passages ofen touted for losing one’s salvation, this one simply isn’t 100% clear on the issue. It MAY be what Paul had in mind, but not necessarily.

 

[Silenus]

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

Dude, I think JAl is making a valid point here . . . I don't think you truly represent the reformers well. Everytime you have mentioned something as against the classic protestanism, I have gone back to look at the westminster catachism (which I would consider a pretty good representation of classic protestanism) and have not found your critique to be accuarate. More on this will be convered in my next post. I think, by claiming that protestants don't believe in sin because we think that sin doesn't stop god's work of salvation, when we believe that God's work of salvation both redeems us from our sins and sanctifies us to sin less and less, through the holy spirit. This is classical protestanism and in classical protestanism sanctification and justification do overlap, but they are treated as separate terms, because Paul does use them separately enough times to signify that he is making a distinction. Just as the sacrifices of the OT illistrated different aspects of the single continuous act of salvation, so paul uses different terms . . . In Romans and in the previous verse I metioned, these words have distinctive use . . .

 

[Silenus]

The Catholic Church teaches that both Predestination and Free Will are both true. It is a great mystery as to how, but they do. This would confirm passages like Gal 6:7-9 and 2 Peter 1:5-11 which mention that to make your calling and election sure you must do these good works because "if you do you will never fall" implying you can fall. Your actions play into God's plan.

I totally disagree with the idea Paul admonishes unbelievers, he makes no indication of that and rather makes it clear he is mad a the Christians turning to lives of sin. It would be a waste of time for him to warn unbelievers in a letter directed at Christians.

One aspect of Perseverance that is very easy to see is the fact that God ultimately controls when you die. Thus He can preserve the life of a person who fell into sin and give them a chance to repent, or He can not give them perseverance and come like a thief after they fall into sin and be subject them to punishment (Rev 2:4-5; Rev 3:3; Heb 10:26-29).

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

Gal 6:7-9

(7) Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.
(8) For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
(9) And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.

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

2Pe 1:9-11

(9) For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins.
(10) Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.
(11) For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

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

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

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

I don’t see where this "non conditional covenant" plays into David's personal salvation. What doesn’t make sense is you talk about the "gift of repentance" yet the very definition of repentance means to reconcile your damaged relationship with God. If a person cant lose salvation then repentance means nothing.

Well, a non-conditional covenant stands permanently. God’s favor and blessing were with David permanently. The covenant says David will be punished if he does wrong, but he will not be forsaken. And, as you said, protestants believe that the ability to seek pardon is a gift of God. An exact statement of how protestants look at things. Can one receive the blessing of god and not be saved? Furthermore, ones relationship with god can be damaged and, yet, not, mean salvation has been lost. They are not mutually bound terms. As the bible says, God can discipline you and you can still be His adopted son.

for your claims that "it seems more likely" that Paul was directing his warnings against unbelievers, the fact is he doesn’t talk like that. In 2 cor 12:21 for example he is sad because they turned to lives of sin and "have still not repented". If your theory was correct we would expect Paul to say "those of you in this lifestyle, you are unbelievers, turn and accept Jesus as your Savior"...but that isnt how he talks. In places like 2 Cor 11:3 he talks about him worrying that they may turn from their pure devotion of Christ to another Gospel...does that make sense if they cant lose their salvation and Paul is really talking at an unbeliever?

They aren’t unbelievers in the sense you mean them, they have the faith described in James, a dead faith. They are members of the covenant community who are in sin and are either, going to repent showing their election and calling, or the are going to go apostate, showing that their true inner state. When you combine the verses you quoted with the small sampling of verses (john 6:38-40, john 10:27-29, Eph 1:13-14, Phil 1:6, I peter 1:5, john 8:31-32) it seems the only way to alleviate the tension between Paul’s admonishments and his statements of confidence about the salvation of the elect is through protestant theology. It seem perplexing to me, again, that this baffles you because you have already said that repentance is a gift. If they cannot repent without God, then god did not choose them. And those he justified, he glorified. Again the group justified is the same group glorified

[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']

Here is my line of thinking: Places like Gal 5:19-21 say adultery can cause you to lose Heaven, you say that is only in reference to unbelievers.

[/FONT]

 

[Silenus]

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

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

NOW, the question arises, can you as a Christian commit adultery? If you say no, then that means if you ever commit adultery you were never a Christian. If you say it is possible for a Christian to commit adultery, then we have to ask why does adultery condemn in Gal 5:19-21 for unbelievers, but not for believers?...the only answer is that you don’t believe in "sin", rather the world is divided into believers who cant do anything wrong and unbelievers who cant do anything right.

One of my favorite verses to bring up here though is 1 Tim 5:8 which talks about a Christian who stops supporting his family, Paul says they have "denied the faith and are worse than an unbeliever"...however that is impossible because in your theology there is nothing worse than an unbeliever.

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

Perseverance means that the possibility of falling does exist and that IF you fall you will be reconciled before death. Perseverance doesn’t make sense if the possibility of falling doesn’t exist.

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

and if your reach Heaven, but if you believe the idea of "will be saved" then you cant claim you are saved in your theology. The fact is the Bible talks about salvation in a past, present and future tense, Catholics try to harmonize this and it is best seen as first entering into a relationship with God, growing in that relationship, and persevering in that relationship to the end..

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

It does not differ from Perseverance of the Saints, but again that is talking about perseverance of the saints according to the traditional Catholic teaching. Protestants hijacked the term/concept of "perseverance of the saints" and made it mean something else, perseverance in an environment when falling is impossible and thus the concept of perseverance logically doesn’t exist.

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

you were "washed" (cleansed in your soul), you were "sanctified" (cleansed in your soul), you were "justified" (cleansed in your soul, received the indwelling of the holy Spirit, Titus 3:5-7). How would you explain "washed" and "sanctified" as being fundamentally different with no overlap?

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

It seems to come down to this.

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

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

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

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