Sufficient vs. Necessary

[Photini]

For the purposes of discussion, I am referring to a forensic justification, that is, we are pronounced just by God due to the merits of Christ's obedience, though we are not personally just in our own lives.

Hi Don. I wanted to vote, but there's not an option for me. I believe that Christ's death is sufficient for us all. It is the phrase "pronounced just by God" and also "though we are not personally just in our own lives" that I am struggling with. It seems that your view of being "justified" is an external thing for us? Something like a verdict...guilty or not guilty?

 

[Woodsy]

Hmmm, this is definitely a weak spot in my theology. Thanks for helping me to see that I need to gain a better understanding.

 

[Reformationist]

Hi Don. I wanted to vote, but there's not an option for me. I believe that Christ's death is sufficient for us all. It is the phrase "pronounced just by God" and also "though we are not personally just in our own lives" that I am struggling with. It seems that your view of being "justified" is an external thing for us? Something like a verdict...guilty or not guilty?

That's why I used the term "forensic." I believe that it is somewhat like a verdict in that God, on the merits of Christ's obedience, proclaims us just with regard to our standing in His sight. That basis is an alien righteousness. It is not of our own merit but that of Christ's merit, which has been applied to our account, and ours to His.

I don't think God's sovereign work ends with justification. I think that through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit we are progressively conformed to the image of righteousness that He has proclaimed us to be.

God bless

 

[Photini]

That's why I used the term "forensic." I believe that it is somewhat like a verdict in that God, on the merits of Christ's obedience, proclaims us just with regard to our standing in His sight. That basis is an alien righteousness. It is not of our own merit but that of Christ's merit, which has been applied to our account, and ours to His.

I don't think God's sovereign work ends with justification. I think that through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit we are progressively conformed to the image of righteousness that He has proclaimed us to be.

God bless

Thanks for explaining that.
So you look at justification as one of the first "steps" on the path?
What exactly takes place in justification. Does God's view of us suddenly change? Why would His view of us have to change?
I don't understand what is meant by "merits of Christ."

 

[Reformationist]

Thanks for explaining that.

I'm not sure I did a very good job but you're welcome.

So you look at justification as one of the first "steps" on the path?

Well, I'm not sure as to the period of latency between personal regeneration and justification but the act of meriting the justification of the sheep of God is accomplished by the efficacious work of the Lord on the Cross. As to whether God applies that verdict of "forensically justified" to all of His elect at that point or does it on an individual basis I really couldn't say that I know.

What exactly takes place in justification.

Well, this won't be exhaustive of course because I'm not sure that I know everything that happens but as I see it our (God's elect) sinfulness is accounted to Christ and He pays the price as a righteous, atoning sacrifice. God gives us (His elect) the salvitic credit for Christ's works of righteousness in appeasing the wrath of the Father.

Does God's view of us suddenly change?

I don't know what you mean by suddenly but prior to Christ's appeasing sacrifice our works are to the glory of the Lord but of no merit to us. It is only His works of obedience that garner for us our adoption into the family of God.

Why would His view of us have to change?

Because everything we did, prior to His regenerating of us, was in opposition to His holiness. God is not an arbitrary God. He could not just return us to His fold while we had sins to atone for. So, He sent His Son. Once Christ had atoned for our (His chosen) sins we are no longer enemies of God. His righteous wrath against us has been appeased by the blood of the spotless Lamb.

I don't understand what is meant by "merits of Christ."

His works of obedience, even unto death.

God bless

 

[Photini]

Because everything we did, prior to His regenerating of us, was in opposition to His holiness. God is not an arbitrary God. He could not just return us to His fold while we had sins to atone for. So, He sent His Son. Once Christ had atoned for our (His chosen) sins we are no longer enemies of God. His righteous wrath against us has been appeased by the blood of the spotless Lamb.His works of obedience, even unto death.

God bless

His wrath has been appeased? So before he was angry and full of wrath, and now His wrath is appeased so He can love us? Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by God's wrath? From my understanding, God is Love...and God never changes and is unimpassioned....

 

[Angelus00]

Sufficient - enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end.

Um, does the use of the word "sufficient" imply action? or pontential action? I may say that I have sufficient funds to pay for my child's education. But, that doesn't mean I WILL pay for it. Does that say if my funds are sufficient, I MUST use them? Am I dabbling in areas best left alone? I believe that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient to justify me, if.....I ask. Just as my funds are sufficient to pay for my child's college education, if.......he asks.

 

[Benedicta00]

Photini,

It is a common reformed belief that Christ stood in our place and receive the beatings, death, hell etc that we should have gotten had Christ not took our place.

It is their belief that Christ bore our sin literally and received punishment for them, went to hell and was judged righteous by God and that is why he rose and when a person accepts him they are given Christ righteous record in exchange for their sins that is what make them justified.

Once you have Christ record, you have it that is why you can not lose salvation. The exchange has been made at regeneration, your sins for his righteousness.

The reformed belief is that God can’t “let sin go” so to speak. If you sinned in any way, God seeks justice for that sin and because you can't pay for that yourself, Jesus pays it for you in your place.

Our view is slightly different, we believe that Christ was a offering to the father for the forgiveness of our sins and that he died and rose so that we may be reconciled back to him as children and when we are baptized we have been reconciled, born again as a child of God.


We believe that Christ reconciled us back to God and when we sin Christ is there to offer himself to the father for our forgiveness.

Where the “argument” comes is in the reformed belief that even if God forgives us, there is the issue of justice. We can not do penance and “make up” for our sins, death or hell has to be paid and reformers believe Christ paid that in advance.

So as you can see by the difference in the views, the reason why Catholics and reformed believers do not get along so well when discussing this issue of atonement and what justifies us and what we are justified for.

 

[geocajun]

Sufficient - enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end.

Um, does the use of the word "sufficient" imply action? or pontential action? I may say that I have sufficient funds to pay for my child's education. But, that doesn't mean I WILL pay for it. Does that say if my funds are sufficient, I MUST use them? Am I dabbling in areas best left alone? I believe that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient to justify me, if.....I ask. Just as my funds are sufficient to pay for my child's college education, if.......he asks.

well said Angelus

 

[Photini]

So as you can see by the difference in the views, the reason why Catholics and reformed believers do not get along so well when discussing this issue of atonement and what justifies us and what we are justified for.

i see.
I have done a little reading on this subject...in some cases, I want to make sure that the author's comments and accurate, as they seem a little exagerated...so far, I've found them right on with what I've seen posted here.
There is still the question though....as to whether it is a matter of God's view of us changing? Does he not look on ALL of us sinner or not, believer or unbeliever with love? What is the reason for having our sins forgiven? Is it a matter of just being forgiven generically or simply a verdict of "not guilty"....or is there something else going on with the forgiveness of sins? What (as best you can explain, anyone) is the work of Christ on the Cross?

 

[Reformationist]

His wrath has been appeased? So before he was angry and full of wrath, and now His wrath is appeased so He can love us? Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by God's wrath? From my understanding, God is Love...and God never changes and is unimpassioned....

What??!!! You seriously need to do a search on "wrath" from the Bible and see how many times it speaks of God's wrath being revealed or poured out upon the iniquity of mankind.

Are you contending that the Bible doesn't speak of God's wrath? I certainly hope not. The Bible most certainly does speak of God's wrath. Of course His wrath is a righteous trait. It pleases God to pour out His wrath upon the iniquity of mankind. We have three options with regard to God's wrath. We can discount the hundreds of Scriptures which speak of it, we can say that God is wrathful against iniquity but He is not pleased that He is wrathful, or we can acknowledge that the Bible does speak of the wrath of God and that it isn't like an extra twenty pounds that God wishes He could rid Himself of. God most certainly does take pleasure in His attributes. One of those attributes is His wrath. It pleases Him to punish wickedness.

So many people say, "God can't be wrathful. God is a God of love." The problem is that these aren't mutually exclusive and people use them as if they are so as to protect God from a charge of unrighteousness. God's wrath is real and it's righteous. He is fully justified in expressing His wrath against iniquity. It assaults His holiness.

Tell me something, if you can't get on board with the idea that the wrath of God against mankind needed to be appeased, what is it that you think Jesus had to die for? God is not only a God of love, He is a God of justice, and mercy and holiness. Never forget His holiness. All His other attributes define His holiness. God, by virtue of being a Just God, couldn't just arbitrarily disregard His own Law. He said, "The wages of sin are death." If, later, He said, "You know, I was just kidding about that whole 'wages of sin are death' thing" how could you trust God in anything He said? How could you be sure that He would not later come back and say, "You know, I was just kidding about that whole 'whoever follows my Son shall have eternal life' thing. You're all going to burn in hell?" God's wrath against His creation, or at least part of it, had to be appeased. That's why no one else could serve as the sacrifice. We were all sinful, from birth. If God said, "Okay, Don (that's me) is going to take the punishment for everybody's sins" it wouldn't work because the minute He got to judging me He'd see that I couldn't even atone for my own sins. That word, "atone," carries the same meaning in this context as "appease." Jesus, by His life of obedience, even unto death, appeased the wrath of God against His sheep and so God was satisfied. Our sins were atoned for.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Sufficient - enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end.

Um, does the use of the word "sufficient" imply action? or pontential action? I may say that I have sufficient funds to pay for my child's education. But, that doesn't mean I WILL pay for it. Does that say if my funds are sufficient, I MUST use them? Am I dabbling in areas best left alone? I believe that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient to justify me, if.....I ask. Just as my funds are sufficient to pay for my child's college education, if.......he asks.

First off, this is irrelevent because I don't think any of us are in disagreement as to whether Christ died on the Cross. It was an actual action, not a potential action. That's why I asked it in the tense that I did. I asked "was Christ's death sufficient or did something else need to be added?".

When the Lord said that His grace was sufficient does that mean that He's not going to give it or that He'll only give it if you ask for it? That would mean that you getting His grace was a product of you asking for it, which kinda contradicts the whole "unmerited favor" deal about grace.

You say, "I believe Christ's sacrifice was sufficient justify me, if...I ask." So, you have answered my question. His sacrifice was not sufficient to justify you. For His sacrifice to be manifested in your life you had to ask for it.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Does he not look on ALL of us sinner or not, believer or unbeliever with love?

You tell me:

Psalm 5:5
The boastful shall not stand in Your sight;
You hate all WORKERS of iniquity.

That does not say "works of iniquity." There is a common, overused, and inaccurate blanket statement that God "hates the sin but loves the sinner." God doesn't just hate the sin. Some Christians would balk at this and say, "Well, I sin and I don't think God hates me." Believe me, if He doesn't hate you then it's because you are in Christ, not because your works of iniquity can stand in His holy sight with impunity.

What (as best you can explain, anyone) is the work of Christ on the Cross?

The Good News of the Gospel is that Christ has suffered for the iniquity of the sheep of God and their transgressions will not be held against them. He has overcome the darkness and cast it down and released His people from the bondage of their sinfulness that they lived under. He has released us. He has made us "free."

God bless

 

[Benedicta00]

Photini

What (as best you can explain, anyone) is the work of Christ on the Cross?

The reformed view is that Christ took the place of the elect, the ones that God choose to save, and suffered their punishment and ...I even heard one reformed believer say (no one from here) that he suffered hell for them to.

They believe that they can not go to hell for theirs sins now because Christ stood in their place and bore the brunt of God's wrath that he has towards their sins.

That is what the reformed belief is of what Christ's work on the cross was all about.

 

[Reformationist]

Photini



The reformed view is that Christ took the place of the elect, the ones that God choose to save, and suffered their punishment and ...I even heard one reformed believer say (no one from here) that he suffered hell for them to.

They believe that they can not go to hell for theirs sins now because Christ stood in their place and bore the brunt of God's wrath that he has towards their sins.

That is what the reformed belief is of what Christ's work on the cross was all about.

Umm...we [reformed Christians] don't believe Christ bore the "brunt" of God's wrath. We believe he bore all the punishment for our sins.
Also, why do you keep trying to give the reformed view of the Gospel?
Why don't you just tell Photini what the view is that you believe and leave the reformed view to reformed Christians?

 

[Benedicta00]

Umm...we [reformed Christians] don't believe Christ bore the "brunt" of God's wrath. We believe he bore all the punishment for our sins.

The difference? Have I been portraying your theology incorrectly? Let me know if I am.

Also, why do you keep trying to give the reformed view of the Gospel?
Why don't you just tell Photini what the view is that you believe and leave the reformed view to reformed Christians?

1# So she can have a better understanding of where you are coming from with your questions and 2# I am not allowed to give what our view is in here, besides Photini has the same view as I, I suspect.

 

[geocajun]

Ref,
The distinct difference highlighted in this thread between Catholics and Reformed Protestants is that Catholics believe that efficacious grace can be resisted by an act of the persons free will. (de fide)
Reformed Protestants believe that grace cannot be resisted and thus is always effective.

 

[Benedicta00]

First off, this is irrelevent because I don't think any of us are in disagreement as to whether Christ died on the Cross. It was an actual action, not a potential action. That's why I asked it in the tense that I did. I asked "was Christ's death sufficient or did something else need to be added?".

When the Lord said that His grace was sufficient does that mean that He's not going to give it or that He'll only give it if you ask for it? That would mean that you getting His grace was a product of you asking for it, which kinda contradicts the whole "unmerited favor" deal about grace.

You say, "I believe Christ's sacrifice was sufficient justify me, if...I ask." So, you have answered my question. His sacrifice was not sufficient to justify you. For His sacrifice to be manifested in your life you had to ask for it.

God bless

I do not think he was saying that.

I think he is saying that Jesus sufficiently opened up the gates to heaven for all of mankind to enter into. I think he is saying that just because the gates were opened and Jesus’ death was enough to do that, that does not mean all will enter through that gate.

Now, what seems to be causing all the confusion here is why do you seem to think if Christ opened up the gate to heaven that it was incomplete work if all souls do not enter in?

I mean I know the reformed view, but what I do not know is why do reformers think this way? Why is his work NOT sufficient if all souls are not saved?

 

[Photini]

Also, why do you keep trying to give the reformed view of the Gospel?
Why don't you just tell Photini what the view is that you believe and leave the reformed view to reformed Christians?

It's the reformed view I'm trying to learn more about. I'm not in here to expound on what I believe, but to learn what it is the reformed and Protestant views are....(I used to be a Protestant, but never studied much about the doctrinal aspects until recently). I'm not debating, but asking questions. And I am very grateful for your patience and forebearance with me!!

 

[Photini]

You tell me:

What about "God is love" (1 John 4:8). And also "for He makes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust." (Matt 5:45)


What I am struggling with is that for God to 'hate" and be angry and full of wrath towards sinners, then before man sinned, God was not angry. And therefore, after Christ's satisfaction of the divine anger, God is no longer angry. So then, God changes, and it is the action of man that causes the change. I just don't understand the wrath of God in the same way as the reformed theology teaches.