Did the Protestant Reformation do anything good?

[guanophore]

I believe you are wrong on marrying after becoming a deacon. It is not my hill to die on. I will be OK. I am sure that someone knows the answer. I will continue to look. If I am wrong, and I do not think I am, I will leave it as is and we can then find understanding. If I am correct, I will say nothing and we can find understanding.

I recommend this link.

 

[guanophore]

Actually not quite I think. This monergism/synergism is just an attempt to get out of the quandary they've gotten themselves into by their forensic understanding of justification and this split with sanctification.

If justification and sanctifcation are truly necessary, what happens when one is justified then dies? Is being justified enough for salvation? If not then how does he get sanctified?

This is why I say that Protestants believe in Purgatory too, they just think of it differently. They will agree that nothing impure can enter heaven, so they think that it just happens at the “moment” of death.

  That is an attempt to sanitize his statement. Sin boldly is precisely that - an encouragement to sin - because you will get out of it anyway, by believing boldly. It is a stupiid statement by a man who thought he has found a way to get out of scrupulosity.

Well, it worked for him!

  His theology is misleading because it is wrong This idea of a break between justification and sanctification is an invention which came up with because of his nominalism which by the is also the parent of the evil isms.

Do you think that Luther has a “break between justification and sanctification”?

 

[CopticChristian]

I recommend this link.

We found understanding prior to this link. Good link.

 

[guanophore]

Paul did not make reference to a forensic understanding of justification nor is it in the NT.

Perhaps we are having a semantics problem. It seems pretty clear to me when I read it. I can also see Calvin got his ideas.

Which is nothing more than an attempt to get out of the quandary they’ve put themselves in due to their forensic understanding of justification.

I guess I just can 't see the quandary you are talking about here.

We are declared just when we have been made just through sanctification. Otherwise, it would be like God lying to Himself then proceeds to make a truth out of the lie by transforming us.

Then you agree that we are justified and sanctified in baptism?

This does not spell forensic justification.

No, of course not! Perhaps you are just too closed minded about this for us to have this discussion at all.

That passage is the one used by Reformed Christians to indicate that God justifies all those He sanctifies.

And what happens if at the point of justification the person dies? So he enters heaven still very much a sinner but cloaked in Christ’s righteousness? Dungheaps covered with snow?

Those who are justified are sanctified.

Another thing that protestant theology can’t escape is that, taken to its logical conclusion, protestant theology is essentially Calvinist in its view of predestination. They just have not extended their principles enough to see this.

There are many Protestants, I would say most, that are not Calvanistic in their understanding of predestination.

I agree with you, though, that often the principles are not extended. If they were, they would realize how illogical they are.

 

[guanophore]

Exactly my point! Sanctification is moot if we believe in forensic justification.

Perhaps it seems “moot” to you because you are using the word differently than Reformed Christians use it.

This is the non-Catholic forum. It states it is for the discussion of different views. If you are unable to encompass a point of view that is different from yours, why are you here? You don’t have to agree with Reformed theology to understand it, but arguing points that Reformed Christians don’t embrace seems like wasting effort on strawmen.

It is one thing to develop doctrine (natural and logical progression) and another to corrupt it and invent one just to calm one’s scrupulosity.

I agree, but Calvin did not suffer from scrupulosity as Luther did. He was an attorney, and he was tired of being oppressed by corrupt “Catholic” princes and bishops. His motivation for inventing his doctrines was different.

 

[JonNC]

This is why I say that Protestants believe in Purgatory too, they just think of it differently. They will agree that nothing impure can enter heaven, so they think that it just happens at the “moment” of death.

Were you thinking of me?

Seriously, it isn’t just protestants such as myself who hold this view. Father Tavard, in Lutheran/Catholic dialogue, refers to some Catholics who believe this as well.

Father Tavard showed how purgatory has been understood by Catholics as both a place of punishment and a state of cleansing, perhaps even momentary, at the time of death. Among the mystics, the latter image has greater prominence inasmuch as final purgation means an encounter with the “fire" of divine love which removes the effects of sin on the human person.

Jon

 

[Petergee]

Individual protestants, and even large groups of protestants, have done a lot of good. But in every case I can think of, when you look more closely you see that they were fixing a problem which wouldn’t have existed, or was made worse, by the invention of protestantism.

For example I was going to point out that a great deal of excellent work in resolving and explaining purported “contradictions” in the Bible, has been done by protestant scholars. But then anti-Christians would not be laying such emphasis on these supposed contradictions, if protesantism and its sola scriptura doctrine had not popularised the idea that Chritisanity is “based on the Bible” and eiether stands or falls depending on the Bible and individuals’ interpretation of it. As Catholics we know that the Catholic Church woould be the same Catholic Church even if she had never produced and canonised the Bible.

Another example is that some protestants did wonderful work to help stamp out slavery. But if not for the protestant revolt and for disobedience of the Popes’ dire condemnations of slavery at the time, enslavement of men by Christians would have remained very rare or non-existent. The Catholic Church had painstakingly worked for centuries to make Christendom the first civilisation in teh history of the world to stamp out slavery, but upon teh protestant revolt it came back with a vengeance and it took another 300 years to stamp it out again from Christendom.

 

[guanophore]

Were you thinking of me?

Always, dear brother.

:hug1:

 

[benedictus2]

This is why I say that Protestants believe in Purgatory too, they just think of it differently. They will agree that nothing impure can enter heaven, so they think that it just happens at the “moment” of death.

How can it be when santification is supposed to be this process of cooperation with grace.

Well, it worked for him!

And alcohol and tobacco calms the nerves it seems.

Do you think that Luther has a “break between justification and sanctification”?

I thought that was obvious.

 

[benedictus2]

Perhaps we are having a semantics problem. It seems pretty clear to me when I read it. I can also see Calvin got his ideas.

And isnt’t that precisely what is wrong with Protestant exegesis - plucking one verse to the exclusion of others and making a conclusion out of that one verse. That is why you will not find a forensic understanding of justification in the early church.

AS for Calvin, this is why I said reformed theology is essentially Calvinist when it comes to predestination.

I guess I just can 't see the quandary you are talking about here.

Once they’ve declared that justification is forensic they had to somehow come up with this next stage of sanctification and had to find some mechanism to make sense of this split.

Then you agree that we are justified and sanctified in baptism?

Was that ever in question?

No, of course not! Perhaps you are just too closed minded about this for us to have this discussion at all.

Show exactly how…

That passage is the one used by Reformed Christians to indicate that God justifies all those He sanctifies.

Here’s the passage again:
*Rom 8:29-30
30 And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified. *

Where exactly does it say that it is a two stage process unless you are equating sanctification with glorification?

Those who are justified are sanctified.

In reference to the verse you cited, it did not say that.

There are many Protestants, I would say most, that are not Calvanistic in their understanding of predestination.

Only because they have not extended their theology enough to realize that that is exactly where it leads.

They are walking on the same road. They stopped but Calvin just continued walking.

I agree with you, though, that often the principles are not extended. If they were, they would realize how illogical they are.

Which is exactly my point.

 

[benedictus2]

Perhaps it seems “moot” to you because you are using the word differently than Reformed Christians use it.

This is the non-Catholic forum. It states it is for the discussion of different views. If you are unable to encompass a point of view that is different from yours, why are you here?

Huh!?

“This is an abortion forum if you cannot understand why people should want to kill their children, why are you here?”
Does that sound logical to you?

You don’t have to agree with Reformed theology to understand it, but arguing points that Reformed Christians don’t embrace seems like wasting effort on strawmen.

How is showing that their belief is inconsistent and illogical strawman?

How is showing that their belief is mired in a terrible philosophy strawmen?

I agree, but Calvin did not suffer from scrupulosity as Luther did. He was an attorney, and he was tired of being oppressed by corrupt “Catholic” princes and bishops. His motivation for inventing his doctrines was different.

The person under discussion there was Luther not Calvin. If you backtrack and refer back to 1voice’s point you will see that it was about Luther.

 

[benedictus2]

Were you thinking of me?

Seriously, it isn’t just protestants such as myself who hold this view. Father Tavard, in Lutheran/Catholic dialogue, refers to some Catholics who believe this as well.

Jon

A man believes so is supposedly “justified” by his belief. He leads a rather not so exemplary life but dies in sin (but still recognized Christ as God).

So he goes to heaven because he has been justified? I mean if sanctification can happen in an instant, there is absolutely no need to lead a good life is there?

 

[guanophore]

How can it be when santification is supposed to be this process of cooperation with grace.

Sanctification is the process of being made holy. If a person dies before this holiness is completely manifested in this life, then the process will be completed after their death. For some, it is instantaneous. At the end of the Age, those still left on earth will be transformed instantly.

1 Thess 4:15-18
15 For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; 17 then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

1 Cor 15:51-54

51 Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality. 54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality…

Surely there will be some whose sanctification is not complete at the sound of the trumpet!

And alcohol and tobacco calms the nerves it seems.

From my reading on Luther, it seems clear that he did not grasp or understand the nature of grace until he was steeped in the Scriptures. He finally figured out forgiveness, something his spiritual directors and confessors were never able to get to penetrate. I think it is not charitable to attribute his enlightenment to mood altering chemicals. He was still a faithful Catholic priest when he came to understand grace.

I thought that was obvious.

Can you help me understand where you see this?

 

[benedictus2]

Sanctification is the process of being made holy. If a person dies before this holiness is completely manifested in this life, then the process will be completed after their death. For some, it is instantaneous. At the end of the Age, those still left on earth will be transformed instantly.

1 Thess 4:15-18
15 For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; 17 then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

1 Cor 15:51-54

51 Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality. 54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality…

Surely there will be some whose sanctification is not complete at the sound of the trumpet!

Yes, that is why there is such a thing as purgatory.

From my reading on Luther, it seems clear that he did not grasp or understand the nature of grace until he was steeped in the Scriptures. He finally figured out forgiveness, something his spiritual directors and confessors were never able to get to penetrate. I think it is not charitable to attribute his enlightenment to mood altering chemicals. He was still a faithful Catholic priest when he came to understand grace.

Did I attribute his enlightenment to altering chemicals?

The point of the alcohol and tobacco quip was: just because something worked it does not mean that it is a good thing.

To come up with a new theology to solve his scrupulosity is hardly a wonderful thing.

A similar solution that some have come up with to avoid feeling guilty is to declare that there is no sin.

 

[benedictus2]

Can you help me understand where you see this?

If you have a two stage process, then there is a break between these stage. One comes first, the other second.

 

[guanophore]

And isnt’t that precisely what is wrong with Protestant exegesis - plucking one verse to the exclusion of others and making a conclusion out of that one verse.

I agree, it is definitely the source of heresy and misunderstanding. However, it seems that it would be helpful, if you are going to dialogue with a Reformed Christian, to understand why they think the way they do. Just repeating your mantra that you don’t see it does not seem very productive. Obviously millions of people do see it, or it would not be so rampant.

That is why you will not find a forensic understanding of justification in the early church.

If it were not believed by the early Church, it would not be in the New Testament.

But, perhaps I don’t understand what you mean by “forensic”. When I hear that word, I am thinking of legal matters.

AS for Calvin, this is why I said reformed theology is essentially Calvinist when it comes to predestination.

Once they’ve declared that justification is forensic they had to somehow come up with this next stage of sanctification and had to find some mechanism to make sense of this split.

I am sorry, I just am not following your train of thought. I don’t see how the necessity of sanctification in Reformed Theology exists to make sense of some “split”.

Was that ever in question?

If a person is justified and sanctified in baptism, then they have no “process” to complete. They are whole, entire, and ready to enter heaven.

Show exactly how…

You want me to show you how you are closed minded?

Here’s the passage again:
Rom 8:29-30
30 And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified. Where exactly does it say that it is a two stage process unless you are equating sanctification with glorification?

Reformed Christians call this “the golden chain of salvation”. They believe that God saves only those He intends to glorify. Therefore, all who are justified are then sanctified, and all that are sanctified are then glorified. One cannot be sanctified until one is first justified, and one cannot be glorified without being both justified and sanctified.

In reference to the verse you cited, it did not say that.

We do not read it that way, because we read it with Catholic faith, so we understand it differently, but they is how they read it.

Most Armenian Christians have a much more Catholic understanding of salvation, but they also believe in forensic justification. I am not sure they use the term the same way you do, though. It clearly seems to mean something different to you than it does when St. Paul writes about it in the Scriptures.

 

[guanophore]

Huh!?  :confused:

“This is an abortion forum if you cannot understand why people should want to kill their children, why are you here?”
Does that sound logical to you?

This is a statement from the forum guidelines:

Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the doctrines and dogmas of both Catholicism and non-Catholic religions. However, all discourse must be civil and charitable.

It does not seem like you are willing to have a dialogue or a discussion on this topic, so I wondered why you are here.

Yes, the question above is logical. Why would you go to a forum of that kind, especially if it was DESIGNED to promote understanding, if you had no desire to understand? If you just want to hit the people over the head with bricks who had abortions, why come to a discussion forum?

 How is showing that their belief is inconsistent and illogical strawman?

Perhaps I just don’t understand your use of the words. Having been steeped in Reformed theology, I understand them differently than the way you use them. It seems to me that you are arguing from a point of view that Reformed Christians don’t espouse.

 How is showing that their belief is mired in a terrible philosophy strawmen?

I dont think it would be, but it is not likely that you will be able to do this if you are not on the same page with the terms being used.

   The person under discussion there was Luther not Calvin. If you backtrack and refer back to 1voice’s point you will see that it was about Luther.

I agree, but Luther did not share the concepts Calvin created about justification and sanctification. They had very different theologies, which you seem to be pressing together.

Luther had a very Catholic conception of sanctification, and after a lot of polemic, so did Calvin.

 

[guanophore]

A man believes so is supposedly “justified” by his belief. He leads a rather not so exemplary life but dies in sin (but still recognized Christ as God).

Is this what you mean by “forensic justification”? If so , it clears up a lot for me.

Reformed Christians believe that a justified person will live a life that befits repentance, and produce the fruits of the Spirit in their lives.

So he goes to heaven because he has been justified? I mean if sanctification can happen in an instant, there is absolutely no need to lead a good life is there?

You already admitted you believe that sanctification can happen in an instant. This is what the Church teaches occurs during baptism.

 

[benedictus2]

I agree, it is definitely the source of heresy and misunderstanding. However, it seems that it would be helpful,** if you are going to dialogue with a Reformed Christian, to understand why they think the way they do. Just repeating your mantra that you don’t see it does not seem very productive.** Obviously millions of people do see it, or it would not be so rampant.

So you think those who have converted and given detailed explanations of why they finally realized the error of reformed theology are not a good enough background to understanding how reformed-theology adherents think?

I would recommend reading Francis Beckwith’s Return to Rome. He goes into quite a lot of detail in the second half of the book into the protestant understanding of justification. A lot more than those that I have read in these forums. And there is a lot of credibility where he is concerned because he was the president of the Evangelical Theological Society.

If it were not believed by the early Church, it would not be in the New Testament.

You are assuming that the NT meant that it was forensic. If it was indeed forensic then the Church Fathers must have been wrong and the Catholic Church must be wrong.

But, perhaps I don’t understand what you mean by “forensic”. When I hear that word, I am thinking of legal matters.

I think Coptic made a differentiation somewhere. But the quote I posted regarding nominalism explained it. It means that justification is a mere declaration that we are just but it does not actually mean that we are indeed just.

As I said in my earlier reply, it would seem like God declared you sinless when in fact nothing has happened, you are left you as vile as you were. Then the sanctification process kicks in to make you indeed sinless. So it was like God says a lie then proceeds to make that lie a truth.

I am sorry, I just am not following your train of thought. I don’t see how the necessity of sanctification in Reformed Theology exists to make sense of some “split”.

The monergism / synergism is what was contrived to make sense of the split.

Sanctification must have come as an afterthought because Luther realized that God could not possibly take you to heaven still full of sin.

If a person is justified and sanctified in baptism, then they have no “process” to complete. They are whole, entire, and ready to enter heaven.

Exactly. Because as far as the Catholic Church is concerned there is no split between justification and sanctification. We don’t say God first declares you just then He proceeds to make you just. God declares you just when you have been made just and not before.

You want me to show you how you are closed minded?

Yes. Based on my post, show me how I am close minded.

Reformed Christians call this “the golden chain of salvation”. They believe that God saves only those He intends to glorify. Therefore, all who are justified are then sanctified, and all that are sanctified are then glorified. One cannot be sanctified until one is first justified, and one cannot be glorified without being both justified and sanctified.

But there is no mentioned of sanctification in that text. It just says justifified then glorified so how do can they possibly support this J-then-S schema.

And if we go with that understanding we’d be as awful as Calvin.

We do not read it that way, because we read it with Catholic faith, so we understand it differently, but they is how they read it.

But that is absolute rubbish. Luther was a Catholic too.
And to say they read it that way, we do it this way is a slip into relativism.

Most Armenian Christians have a much more Catholic understanding of salvation, but they also believe in forensic justification.

If justification is forensic then it cannot be said to be a Catholic understanding.

I am not sure they use the term the same way you do, though. It clearly seems to mean something different to you than it does when St. Paul writes about it in the Scriptures.

So you think that St Paul meant forensic? So you think the Church Fathers and the Catholic Church got Paul wrong?

 

[benedictus2]

guanophore:
Is this what you mean by “forensic justification”? If so , it clears up a lot for me.

Reformed Christians believe that a justified person will live a life that befits repentance, and produce the fruits of the Spirit in their lives.
Which absolutely makes no sense considering the number of people who have said proclaimed Jesus as Lord and saviour and got themselves mired in sin.

Besides, that is not what Luther meant. Luther meant that someone who has been justified remains a sinner. That is why the second stage is needed.

I suggest you refer back to the text I quoted by EL Mascall on Nominalism and its heavy influence on Luther.

You already admitted you believe that sanctification can happen in an instant. This is what the Church teaches occurs during baptism.

Yes, but the Church teaches that that happens only at Baptism. The Church does not teach that purgatory is at point of death - wham and you’re in heaven.