Beginning with luther?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Erick_Ybarra
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Erick_Ybarra said:
For instance, he believes that the sin of Adam is imputed to mankind, not just in the sense of making others sinful and corrupt, but that they are suffering the punishment of death not because of their sin but because of Adam’s sin (do you see?).
Click to expand...
You mean Original Sin? Catholics teach this. Original Sin is more than just having the nature to sin. We too believe we will die because of Adam and Eve’s sin.
Erick_Ybarra said:
In the same way the gift of “righteousness” is that which is given to mankind to make him just before God, not intrinsically, but as a status of right-standing with God, do you see?
Click to expand...
That’s called being in God’s Grace, meaning that we have accepted His given gift of Grace and turned from our sinful ways and seeking forgiveness from past sins, though we can still fall short again, and thus we need to again seek God’s Grace.

It’s more than just faith, faith needs action. Accepting is one action of faith (a work, if you will), and to remain faithful takes work, and to live out the faith takes work. You cannot have faith without work. The work brings and keeps the faith alive, so you need both.

We are justified by Grace alone, through Faith. And the Faith that this speaks of is one of action and belief, because you can’t have one without the other.
 
bzkoss236 said:
That’s called being in God’s Grace, meaning that we have accepted His given gift of Grace and turned from our sinful ways and seeking forgiveness from past sins, though we can still fall short again, and thus we need to again seek God’s Grace.

It’s more than just faith, faith needs action. Accepting is one action of faith (a work, if you will), and to remain faithful takes work, and to live out the faith takes work. You cannot have faith without work. The work brings and keeps the faith alive, so you need both.

We are justified by Grace alone, through Faith. And the Faith that this speaks of is one of action and belief, because you can’t have one without the other.
Click to expand...
I think, in general, even Luther would agree with this.

Jon
 
I am reading through Robert Sungenis’s book “Not by faith alone” and I cannot but help myself to avoid putting some information that correlates.

Sungenis teaches that when God justifies a person, he is simply pronouncing that the person is just because the person is truly intrinsically just and bears righteous qualities.

C’mon! If this is what Paul meant in Romans, then whats the point of declaring all “under sin” (Rom 3:9)? What’s the point of disabling human beings from being justified by the law (Rom 3:20)? What’s the point of teaching anything about the death of Jesus? (Rom 3:24).

Paul actually explicitly says “But to those who do not work, but believe in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Rom 4:4-9).

The justification of sinners is a justification of the ungodly, not the reverse. Sungenis would have it as the reverse.

And to the question of whether this is done by infusion or imputation, Paul answers the question! It amazes me how this can be overlooked

“Just as David describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven; who transgressions are covered; blessed is the man to whom God will not count sin”

The justification of the ungodly is what David is speaking about here.

When a tax collector, full of his sin and guilt, comes to God on his knees and begs for mercy, and has a heart conversion away from sin, THIS MAN IS JUSTIFIED.
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
I am reading through Robert Sungenis’s book “Not by faith alone” and I cannot but help myself to avoid putting some information that correlates.

Sungenis teaches that when God justifies a person, he is simply pronouncing that the person is just because the person is truly intrinsically just and bears righteous qualities.

C’mon! If this is what Paul meant in Romans, then whats the point of declaring all “under sin” (Rom 3:9)? What’s the point of disabling human beings from being justified by the law (Rom 3:20)? What’s the point of teaching anything about the death of Jesus? (Rom 3:24).

Paul actually explicitly says “But to those who do not work, but believe in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Rom 4:4-9).

The justification of sinners is a justification of the ungodly, not the reverse. Sungenis would have it as the reverse.

And to the question of whether this is done by infusion or imputation, Paul answers the question! It amazes me how this can be overlooked

“Just as David describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven; who transgressions are covered; blessed is the man to whom God will not count sin”

The justification of the ungodly is what David is speaking about here.

When a tax collector, full of his sin and guilt, comes to God on his knees and begs for mercy, and has a heart conversion away from sin, THIS MAN IS JUSTIFIED.
Click to expand...
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
I am reading through Robert Sungenis’s book “Not by faith alone” and I cannot but help myself to avoid putting some information that correlates.

Sungenis teaches that when God justifies a person, he is simply pronouncing that the person is just because the person is truly intrinsically just and bears righteous qualities.

C’mon! If this is what Paul meant in Romans, then whats the point of declaring all “under sin” (Rom 3:9)? What’s the point of disabling human beings from being justified by the law (Rom 3:20)? What’s the point of teaching anything about the death of Jesus? (Rom 3:24).

Paul actually explicitly says “But to those who do not work, but believe in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Rom 4:4-9).

The justification of sinners is a justification of the ungodly, not the reverse. Sungenis would have it as the reverse.

And to the question of whether this is done by infusion or imputation, Paul answers the question! It amazes me how this can be overlooked

“Just as David describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven; who transgressions are covered; blessed is the man to whom God will not count sin”

The justification of the ungodly is what David is speaking about here.

When a tax collector, full of his sin and guilt, comes to God on his knees and begs for mercy, and has a heart conversion away from sin, THIS MAN IS JUSTIFIED.
Click to expand...
Erick in Christ,

I’ve read only some of Sungenis’ work, but I’m pretty sure that you are misunderstanding him. He is most likely stating what I have discussed with you on another thread. He is probably arguing that we are “made” righteous and not merely imputed righteous at justification.

God bless.
 
Actually, Robert Sungenis actually discredits any imputation of righteousness to the human being, despite the fact that Paul actually says that God imputes righteousness to man.

“Just as David speaks of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin” (Rom 4:7-9)

The non-imputation of sin is simply the negative way of saying the imputation of righteousness. Therefore the forgiveness of sin is what God does in justification.
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
Yes good works are salvific. Jesus taught that there will be a resurrection, for those who have done good, into life. Protestants have always taught this.

Faith with no practice of righteosuness will gain no one entrance into the kingdom. This is taught in protestant theologians aw pink, Herman ridderbos, Richard gaffin, Wayne grudem, Charles spurgeon, john MacArthur, john calvin, the puritans, especially the baptist original, etc etc

Chrysostom however when speaking about the righteousness which justifies us, never speaks of it as that righteousness which inheres in us, but the gift of status
Click to expand...
erick, just wondering, how do you reconcile faith alone as you say Chrysostom teaches and works being salvific?
 
carlos19 said:
erick, just wondering, how do you reconcile faith alone as you say Chrysostom teaches and works being salvific?
Click to expand...
could it be Erick that maybe we are falling into the same old pattern when catholics and protestants debate…could we be misinterpreting what we mean by justification and sanctification? I tend to find that we often do not work from the same paradigm or definitions of these terms…making any understanding harder…
 
One more thing Erick, the reason I ask as to your definition of these things, is because most of what you have written is about what Chrysostom believes is in line with Catholic theology.

St. Chrysostom just like the other church fathers and the Church (and you seem to as well) believes that good works are salvific in nature. From reading Chrysostom’s beautiful homilies, he believes that we can lose our salvation after receiving the gift of GRACE. I know I am preaching to the choir since you believe this too. We Catholics do to by the way. Grace brings us to the Kingdom and living a proper life in grace with the help of the Spirit keeps us there. There is simply no contradiction in what Chrysostom believes and what Catholics believe in this matter.

Where you seem to disagree is that whether righteousness is legally declared or infused within our soul by the power of the Holy Spirit.

So, the question is whether Chrysostom believes in a real righteousness or a legally declared one. I know you do not believe in the alien imputation of Christ’s righteousness.

Have you read Chrysostom’s homily on the Gospel of Matthew?

He basically illustrates that we should not put our confidence in faith alone. the saint calls us to take care with respect to our life and our behavior so that the garment cleansed by grace remains clean.

Remember he is talking to believers, and in this homily he and alludes to the monks (remember he is a desert father) who dwell in the desert. He reminds the believers of these holy persons. He says that if you were to look inside the souls of these holy ones, you would literally be knocked down to the earth by the beauty and splendor of their holiness.

Since he was talking to believers and pointing to the holiness of the desert monks do you think this points to a real holiness/righteousness being in our soul as we work toward sanctification?
 
Chrysostom believes that the gift of righteousness is the quality status of being righteous by faith repentance and conversion. This is immediately given. The status of being right with god.

Just out of curiosity hoe does a catholic argue against once saved always saved from the golden chain of Romans 8 which seems to say there is an j broken connection between those god predestined and those who are glorified in the end.
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
Chrysostom believes that the gift of righteousness is the quality status of being righteous by faith repentance and conversion. This is immediately given. The status of being right with god.

Just out of curiosity hoe does a catholic argue against once saved always saved from the golden chain of Romans 8 which seems to say there is an j broken connection between those god predestined and those who are glorified in the end.
Click to expand...
Do you believe in once saved always saved?
 
You believe that works are salvific. maybe you already know in your heart that we can lose our salvation.

You are a man of great intelligence Erick. The Church needs people like you. We all have our own paths and I do not know where your path will lead you. I prayed to St. Chrysostom so that he can pray to the Lord our God to give you the guidance that you seek. That might rub your protestant side the wrong way, I know this…but it was done with the best of intentions.

My path back to the church was a bit simpler. I left it many years ago for protestantism as well. I did not want to return, but I could not ignore that Jesus had left a Church, his bride and not a book. I did read the fathers and early church history and other catholic apologists just like you are doing now.

However I am not as smart as you. I was satisfied that I had discovered the Bride of Christ. The fountain of Truth.

I took a leap of faith when the words the righteous shall live by faith resonated in my heart.

By faith I believe that the Eucharist is the body and blood of our Lord.
By faith I believe that this is his Church
By faith I believe that the Word of God is also a Man.

I am not saying this to convince you, I am just sharing my walk back to the Church.

God Bless you Erick.
 
Thank you for sharing that information.

To be quite as honest as I possibly can, I am hoping that I can come to see the Roman Catholic Church as the Church Christ planted. It provides a major organizational structure and a rich root in history.

However, despite this fact, it does not seem the Catholic Church has continued with it’s original succession. In fact I believe that the succession of the apostles resides in those communities where they interpret the apostles correctly.

For instance, the office of Bishop depended on the holiness and personal faithfulness to Christ of the human person, not the other way around.

Secondly, there is a huge decline in the practice of church discipline in the church. Nowadays you have fornicators, drunks, adulterers, porn addicts, people living with their boyfriends, plain out lukewarm people filling up the Catholic Church ALL partaking of the Lord’s Supper with no physical pain or death inflicted.

When I see brothers and sisters in Christ who are baptist who absolutely have risked their lives for the gospel and who day -to day live for Jesus Christ who do not take a real presence Eucharist, nor do they have any of the other sacraments, AND THEN when I see many many catholics who take the sacraments but who are simply outright unholy, it fails to attract me to the Catholic Church.

This on top of all the doctrinal issues. I really do not think the early fathers believe what modern day catholics believe. Many Church Father historians have recognized this, David W. Bercot is one.
 
This on top of all the doctrinal issues. I really do not think the early fathers believe what modern day catholics believe. Many Church Father historians have recognized this, David W. Bercot is one.
Click to expand...
It certainly isn’t ALL the doctrinal issues, I read enough of your posts . There are areas where we agree are there not?

Don’t we agree on baptism for example? or the lack of merit of Sola Scriptura?
 
Yes on baptism. I do believe in “meriting eternal salvation” if we can attribute the ground and means of performing these works of perserverance to God’s grace and first initiation.

But really the main issue I have with Roman Catholicism right now is the failure to practice church discipline.
 
To the modern day Catholic Church as a whole.

The early Christians insisted that if one did not bear fruits worthy of repentance, they were not one of the Lord’s. Those tress which did not bear good fruit were to be taken through the process of church discipline, which the early christians did, and yet the Catholic church allows anyone to come and stay, even to take the Eucharist, allowing each inidividual to decide for himself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top