Faith Alone disrupted in 3 easy steps!

[Ravyn_Guiliani]

From reading various posts on this thread, it seems to me that many people on both sides of the argument are falling into an either/or argument when it comes to faith & works. The traditional Catholic understanding of both/and is much more helpful. There are many paradoxes within Christianity that an either/or outlook fails resolve. The both/and outlook will often times resolve the paradox.

This needs to be kept in mind when citing scripture as well. Many on both sides have thrown around scripture verses to argue their point of view. It must be kept in mind that scripture must be interpreted within scripture. That is, the conclusion drawn from one verse cannot contradict another verse of scripture. God as the author of all scripture, of course, would not contradict himself.

I think this last point is what the author of this thread was trying to point out. I have yet to read a reply that incorporates all of the verses he cited into one complete answer. If i missed one, please point me to it.

Thanks!

yes Catholicism is not either/or it is also/and.
Ravyn

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Shock; right; I never knew Gal 3:8 existed until you posted it.

What cannot be denied is that the HS was moved to record indisputably, and only that the faith that justified Abe occurred because of the event of Gen 15:4; namely, ”your heir will come forth from your own body; the testimony continues in v6, “THEN he believed in the Lord…”

Your clearly uncomfortable here, your response blew off my comments regarding Gal 3:8 as if the passage never existed and instead you spun back to Gen 15. (anyone can click on the little blue box to jump back to your response to my comments)

It took longer for me to believe the gospel than it did for Abe, so that point is incredibly weak, and there is no bind in that whatsoever; any problems that you persceive for the protestant exist in your imagination; I follow the testimony, and not some magisterium, which is absent from the testimony; so too does Paul follow the testimony, and he refers neither to Gen 12, nor to Heb 11 to expound his doctrine of justification, but to Gen 15, specifically, v6.

You clearly dont understand the implications then of having a time frame (in years) between when a person first puts their faith in God and when that faith actually results in justification.

Yes protestants on this forum are so unfair, and like shifting sand in their discussions, and they need you to keep them honest.

You have already started down that road of swerving in and out of the logical consequences of your theology in relation to the clear testimony of Abraham’s faith in God in Gen 12. Your brushing off Gen 12 and Heb 11 (now Gal 3:8) at every turn, you cannot account for how an unjustified man was obeying God all this time (when you believe an unjustified person cannot please God) and you cannot account for the fact it took years between his first act of faith and his ‘one and only’ justification.

 

[rl62]

I might be a slow learner, but as a former protestant (and relatively new Catholic), it just makes complete sense to me that Christ died for us and our salvation. But just like a person can save a drowning swimmer from a lake, that swimmer can foolishly jump back in and toss out the second chance his rescuer provided him. It just never made sense to me, especially in light of too many biblical passages to list, that what “works” we do just don’t matter.

My reading of the Bible tells me that God would be most glorified (and happy) if we all made it into heaven. But considering that the gate is supposed to be narrow, it seems unlikely that we’re all getting in there. As I see it, it seems more consistent with the Bible to assume that it’s how we live our lives (our works) together with our faith, rather than God predestining us to heaven or hell that makes the difference.

From my elementary viewpoint, the punishments wreaked upon humanity (flood, plagues, etc.) all came about because people were living sinful lives and not at all loving their neighbors more than themselves. The sinful were wiped away and the good were saved. That seems to indicate that we’re supposed to be working to live a holy life.

Christ provided all of us sinners yet another chance, and in my simple thinking, I can best honor that by working through my life, in strong faith, to follow the commandments. They are, in my thinking, 10 ‘commandments’ – not the 10 ‘suggestions.’ Otherwise, what’s the point?

I guess it boils down to this – if some people think it’s logical or biblical to deem themselves saved by faith alone, that’s their gamble. But for me personally, I feel more confident of my salvation by cherishing the sacrifice Christ made by honoring that with good works in my life. And because I’m fallible and fail to do even close to as good as would make God proud, I’m thankful for the Catholic Church and it’s sacraments. Confession does do a soul good – at least for me.

Personally, I’d never rest if I had to live by the “faith alone” theory. I guess I’m a little bit of a “better safe than sorry” person – I’d rather have faith AND good works, and the peace and closeness to God I can find through confession and the sacraments and then at my death find I didn’t need the good works after all and that my faith was more than enough, rather than find out that I should have been very concerned with good works … when it’s too late. Of all the things that could separate me from God, I doubt it will be my works and attempts to live a holy life.

But that’s just me. I love apologetics because they are what brought me into the Catholic Church, but am somehow very uncomfortable … down in my soul … about how happy Christ would be to see Christians of the Catholic Church and the 20,000 plus different Christian denominations arguing instead of reaching out to non-Christians to bring them into the fold.

It’s reasonable and right, in my view to explain one’s faith. But if I explain my faith and the reasons therefor out of love and sincere hope that the listener will come to enjoy what I sincerely believe to be the fullness of the truth, and a protestant rejects it, there’s probably not much more I can do.

People have been twisting the Bible to say what they want for generations, and it’s likely to continue. Very few seem to agree; they’re all interpreting the Bible to say something different. I live in a Texas town of 800+people and we have at least 6 tiny Baptist churches, because the pastors disagree about what the Bible says – even about “faith alone.”

That’s part of why the 2000+ year history of the Catholic Church (yes, despite the failures of people in the Church) gives me more solice that I’m following a compass that’s tuned properly. I’m going with what Peter handed down to us. If I’m wrong, God knows my faith is sincere and he knows for how many years I’ve prayed for guidance about which path to follow.

I sincerely wish all of you God’s blessings and pray for all of our collective understandings and goal to live according to God’s will.

 

[TheRaiders]

It doesn’t matter what I think. It is a matter of intellectual integrity and quoting the Word of God faithfully.

If you want to make an editorial comment that “all” means “everyone without exception”, so be it. But make it clear those are your words. Inserting them, without qualification into the text is bearing a false witness.

I am appealing to your honesty and your obligation to Christ to faithfully quote his words as they were written by the apostles and not embellish them with your preconceptions.

You might say a person has taken something out of context, by quoting a specific piece of scripture and point out his error, by providing the context in greater fidelity and correct and error of understanding.

It is another thing all togther to actually corrupt the text in order to make it say something it doesn’t say.

Whether you agree with Wisdom or not, you can’t support a method that undermines your integrity.

People can certainly disagree, but you are not allowed to cheat.

What Wisdom did with the text of scripture was simply unethical.

v/r
cg99

At least, if he did make that ethical error, it was done in the context of an informal internet forum. Martin Luther added “alone” to the actual Bible because he thought “faith alone” was implied. It was based on a missunderstanding of what Paul was teaching.

 

[Emerite]

Even without the 3 easy steps disproving salvation by faith alone, doesn’t it just make common sense that if one commits sin, this is equivalent to turning one’s back on Jesus Christ, i.e., not believing/accepting Jesus Christ? Therefore, one merits heaven by good deeds as well as believing in Jesus Christ. I don’t see how anyone with any intelligence could believe that one could just say they accept Jesus as their Savior while thinking it’s OK to break the Ten Commandments – lying, stealing, murder, etc.

 

[sandusky]

Catholic Dude:

Your clearly uncomfortable here, your response blew off my comments regarding Gal 3:8 as if the passage never existed and instead you spun back to Gen 15. (anyone can click on the little blue box to jump back to your response to my comments)

Actually, I think it is you who are uncomfortable, and irritated, that no one was bowled-over by your newly found appreciation for Gal 3:8.
Catholic Dude:

You clearly dont understand the implications then of having a time frame (in years) between when a person first puts their faith in God and when that faith actually results in justification.

Another one of many unsupported assertions. (Why can’t you simply set aside the histrionics, and explain these “implications,” rather than continuing to imply that those who disagree with you, do so because they lack understanding?)
Catholic Dude:

You have already started down that road of swerving in and out of the logical consequences of your theology in relation to the clear testimony of Abraham’s faith in God in Gen 12. Your brushing off Gen 12 and Heb 11 (now Gal 3:8) at every turn…

:yawn:

…you cannot account for how an unjustified man was obeying God all this time…

When Pharaoh finally let the Israelites leave Egypt, was he obeying God? Was he justified?

Did the King of Assyria in Isa 10:5-15 obey God? Was he justified?

When unbelieving gentiles do instinctively the things of the law, are they obeying God?
Are they justified?

What you cannot account for, is why Paul, and James, when speaking in their respective ways concerning justification, never refer to Gen 12 with respect to Abe’s justification, but both finally refer to Gen 15.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That is the question: at what moment did Abe have this “saving faith.” Clearly, Heb 11 is neither a treatise, nor an exposition on justification, but a highlighting of the role of faith in the lives of individuals who were central to the saving purposes of God (vv4–31), with particular attention given to Abraham and Sarah (vv8–19) and Moses (vv23–28). Again, the passage is not an exposition on justification, and neither is Gen 12; for an exposition on justification,see Romans 4:1ff.

The reason that Gen 15 is appealed to is that it is a clear statement of the means of justification—faith—and that justification is a “reckoning,” or an imputation in the declarative sense.

And Gen 22 is much more than simply a demonstration “before men” of Abe’s justification. In Gen 22, God tested Abe’s faith, and as James points out in the beginning of his epistle that testing of faith produces patience, and perseverance, which is an important virtue to the Christian, and is often mentioned by Jesus (Lk. 8:15; 21:19; cf Mt. 10:22), and Paul (Rom. 5:3–4; 8:25; 2 Cor. 6:4; 12:12).

So it is fitting that in the second chapter of his epistle, James refers to Gen 22, and Abe, to demonstrate a true, patient, and enduring faith because scripture records that event as the first testing of anyone’s faith.

Sandy-

I think that you would probably admit that we Catholics have been confronted by non-C’s in this very forum who argued precisely that Gen 22 was merely testimony “before men”, that Gen 15 was “it” and who essentially ignored Gen 12 completely. The quotes provided by Bishopite above from Sproul and Swan are just two examples of what is a prevalent position.

While I do understand the frustration you may experience when debating Catholics who are not “100% on the reservation” doctrine-wise, at least we all know that there is a single stated position taught by the Church itself.

Conversely, imagine the difficulties we face when trying to discuss this in detail with multiple Protestants from diverse faith traditions!

Finally, regarding Hebrews 11, I would like to ask whether Abraham had mere intellectual assent in Gen 12, or if his obedience to God demonstrates a saving faith.

Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I follow the testimony, and not some magisterium, which is absent from the testimony; so too does Paul follow the testimony, and he refers neither to Gen 12, nor to Heb 11 to expound his doctrine of justification, but to Gen 15, specifically, v6.

I hold that Paul is the author of Hebrews and that he did refer to Gen 12 in Heb 11.

He also referred to Gen 15 in Romans 4.

Paul sees multiple moments of justification - which is a process and not a single event.

Just as the Catholic Church teaches.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Even without the 3 easy steps disproving salvation by faith alone, doesn’t it just make common sense that if one commits sin, this is equivalent to turning one’s back on Jesus Christ, i.e., not believing/accepting Jesus Christ? Therefore, one merits heaven by good deeds as well as believing in Jesus Christ. I don’t see how anyone with any intelligence could believe that one could just say they accept Jesus as their Savior while thinking it’s OK to break the Ten Commandments – lying, stealing, murder, etc.

I hear what your saying and I agree, the problem here is that it doesnt convince Protestants.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Actually, I think it is you who are uncomfortable, and irritated, that no one was bowled-over by your newly found appreciation for Gal 3:8.

Funny because your the one brushing it off as if it has zero significance.

Another one of many unsupported assertions. (Why can’t you simply set aside the histrionics, and explain these “implications,” rather than continuing to imply that those who disagree with you, do so because they lack understanding?)

I have explained the implications of Abraham not being justified despite pleasing God all those years, the two major ones that come to mind are that:
-Despite the faith you have justification can be years down the road.
-The quality of faith you have can either be seen as irrelevant or very demanding depending on how you interpret it.

This flies in the face of Faith Alone because faith alone doesnt demand such high grade faith (built up over years) and worse yet having to take years to be justified.

:yawn:

If thats your defense ?..Plug your ears so you dont have to face the music.

When Pharaoh finally let the Israelites leave Egypt, was he obeying God? Was he justified?

Did the King of Assyria in Isa 10:5-15 obey God? Was he justified?

These examples are not the same because they were not acting in such a way as to focus their lives on God, they acted out of fear and greed. You cant compare these men to Abraham’s life of faith and obedience.

When unbelieving gentiles do instinctively the things of the law, are they obeying God?
Are they justified?

According to Paul in Romans 2 yes they can be saved.

What you cannot account for, is why Paul, and James, when speaking in their respective ways concerning justification, never refer to Gen 12 with respect to Abe’s justification, but both finally refer to Gen 15.

LOL what I CANNOT account for…ONLY the Catholic understanding of salvation can harmonize these Scriptures, all you can do is dance around the bush and launch unfounded counter attacks. They refer to Gen 15 because it was an amazing act of faith in Abraham’s life, he had been obeying God all this time and he was almost at the breaking point because he and his wife were goners yet still no son, yet he came up with the faith to not give up and trust God, James says this climaxed when God asked Abraham to take away the very son he had been dying to have yet he built up the faith again (though James says this justification was not by faith alone).

 

[Bishopite]

How am I not?

Well, by your standard of personal interpretation ONLY we can all surely create our own scenario to what we think scripture means; this is a blue print for chaos. Who’s to decide?

Bishopite, how is it that you have come to know that your infallible teachers, so-called, are teaching what’s right if you, yourself, haven’t interpreted the scriptures? :whacky:

 

[Bishopite]

For my benefit, would you please describe the process?
v/r
cg99

The problem for the once-for-all view is that the offering of Isaac is recorded in Gen. 22:1-18—seven chapters after Gen. 15:6. Therefore, just as Abraham was justified before 15:6 when he left Haran for the promised land, so he was also justified again when he offered Isaac after 15:6. Therefore, we see that Abraham was justified on at least three different occasions: he was justified in Genesis 12, when he first left Haran and went to the promised land; he was justified in Genesis 15, when he believed the promise concerning his descendants; and he was justified in Genesis 22, when he offered his first promised descendant on the altar. **As a result, justification must be seen, not as a once-for-all event, but as a process which continues throughout the believer’s life. **This is something that many Protestants have recognized. For example, James D.G. Dunn, E.P. Sanders, and Dale Moody.3 Some of the early Reformers did as well. For example, the Swiss Reformer Martin Bucer regarded man as receiving a two-fold justification. First he received the iustificatio impii, or primary justification, in which he was declared righteous before God, and then he received the iustificatio pii, or secondary justification, in which he was actually made to behave righteously.4 Even the very first Protestant of them all—Martin Luther—held justification to be a process as well as a state. The well-known Luther scholar, Paul Althaus, summarizes Luther’s position as follows:

"Luther uses the terms to justify' . . . and justification’ . . . in more than one sense. From the beginning [of Luther’s writings], justification most often means the judgement of God with which he declares man to be righteous . . . . In other places, however, the word stands for the entire event though which a man is essentially made righteous (a usage which Luther also finds in Paul, Romans 5), that is, for both the imputation of righteousness to man as well as man’s actually becoming righteous. Justification in this sense remains incomplete on earth and is first completed on the Last Day. Complete righteousness is in this sense is an eschatological reality.

This twofold use of the word cannot be correlated with Luther’s early and later theology; he uses `justification’ in both senses at the same time, sometimes shortly after each other in the same text."5

Luther himself wrote, "For we understand that a man who is justified is not already righteous, but moving toward righteousness."6

and

"Our justification is not yet complete . . . . It is still under construction. It shall, however, be completed in the resurrection of the dead."7

We therefore see that, even though most Protestants deny that justification is a process as well as a state, many contemporary Protestant scholars, as some of the early Protestant Reformers, as well as the first Protestant of them all, recognized the justification was also a process.8 In this, they were in accord with the teaching of the Bible.

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/ABRAHAM.htm

 

[sandusky]

Referring to Gal 3:8, CD says:

Funny because your the one brushing it [Gal 3:8] off as if it has zero significance.

CD, in Gal 3:6, Paul begins to give a carefully reasoned set of arguments that end at Gal 4:7. Those arguments center on the relationship between the Abrahamic promise and the giving of the law, and how one becomes a child of Abraham.

In Gal 3:6, to what OT verse does Paul give over-arching pre-eminence in the beginning of his arguments?
Catholic Dude:

I have explained the implications of Abraham not being justified despite pleasing God all those years, the two major ones that come to mind are that:
-Despite the faith you have justification can be years down the road.
-The quality of faith you have can either be seen as irrelevant or very demanding depending on how you interpret it.

This flies in the face of Faith Alone because faith alone doesnt demand such high grade faith (built up over years) and worse yet having to take years to be justified.

So what? It is God who justifies, and He can take as long as He pleases to do that (cf Rom 8:33; Dan 4:35).

Faith differs from individual to individual; some have strong faith, some have weak faith
(cf Rom 14).
Catholic Dude:

If thats your defense ?..

What was I to defend; your unsupported assertions?
Catholic Dude:

These examples are not the same because they were not acting in such a way as to focus their lives on God, they acted out of fear and greed. You cant compare these men to Abraham’s life of faith and obedience.

I see; you could not conceive of an answer to the false dilemma in which you thought I was placed, and now that’s it been shown to be a false dilemma, you sputter, you reject my answers, and you insist on qualifying your statements. Too late. :nope:
Catholic Dude:

According to Paul in Romans 2 yes they can be saved.

I didn’t ask what they could be; I asked, “are they justified?”

No need to answer. :tiphat:

 

[mikeledes]

Faith is a gift of God. I think everyone here accepts that. But if a person has faith, are they not justified. If Abraham had faith in Genesis 12, can he be unjustifed?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

Faith is a gift of God. I think everyone here accepts that. But if a person has faith, are they not justified. If Abraham had faith in Genesis 12, can he be unjustifed?

God Bless,
Michael

Unjustified implies that he was previously justified; it is nothing more than the your bias creeping in.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

CD, in Gal 3:6, Paul begins to give a carefully reasoned set of arguments that end at Gal 4:7. Those arguments center on the relationship between the Abrahamic promise and the giving of the law, and how one becomes a child of Abraham.

In Gal 3:6, to what OT verse does Paul give over-arching pre-eminence in the beginning of his arguments?

Gal 3:6 cites Gen 15:6…so what? Does that disprove my case that justification is a process? The fact is verse 8 is specifically talking about the justification of the gentiles and references Gen 12:3…you cant account for that.

So what? It is God who justifies, and He can take as long as He pleases to do that (cf Rom 8:33; Dan 4:35).

This flies in the face of Faith Alone because “take as long as He pleases” can only be in reference to a process, in this case of obedience over the years…the forensic Faith Alone justification of Protestantism will not allow for “obedience” to play into justification, further classical protestantism teaches unregenerate man cannot please God (only after Justification during the process of sanctification) yet Abraham was doing so since Gen 12.
Further, I highly doubt any protestants teach that after hearing the Gospel it could take years between the first act of faith before justification (rather, they would say if you believed in the gospel through faith alone you were justified then and there, yet it wasnt even that easy for Abraham.

Faith differs from individual to individual; some have strong faith, some have weak faith (cf Rom 14).

And whats your point? If they have weak faith they cant be justified or something? To go down the road of requiring a high level of faith does nothing more than shoot yourself in the foot because you run into such situations as “did I have enough faith that day I believe in the Gospel?”…and as a result lose the “assurance” faith alone was originally supposed to provide.

I see; you could not conceive of an answer to the false dilemma in which you thought I was placed, and now that’s it been shown to be a false dilemma, you sputter, you reject my answers, and you insist on qualifying your statements. Too late.

Hardly, you created a false comparison. Further, with your own Calvinist “Total Depravity” understandings you would most certainly brush off those other men as doing “good” but not in the eyes of God (because unregenerate man cannot please God)…the problem is you not only wouldnt dare say such about Abraham’s position, you have no grounds to, but even worse you cant explain it because he wasnt Justified until 15:6.

I didn’t ask what they could be; I asked, “are they justified?”

The Rom 2:14-16 passage says God judges their hearts, if they meet His requirements then they would be justified.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Unjustified implies that he was previously justified; it is nothing more than the your bias creeping in.

Replace “unjustified” with “not yet justified”

 

[sandusky]

Gal 3:6 cites Gen 15:6…so what? Does that disprove my case that justification is a process? The fact is verse 8 is specifically talking about the justification of the gentiles and references Gen 12:3…you cant account for that.

This flies in the face of Faith Alone because “take as long as He pleases” can only be in reference to a process, in this case of obedience over the years…the forensic Faith Alone justification of Protestantism will not allow for “obedience” to play into justification, further classical protestantism teaches unregenerate man cannot please God (only after Justification during the process of sanctification) yet Abraham was doing so since Gen 12.
Further, I highly doubt any protestants teach that after hearing the Gospel it could take years between the first act of faith before justification (rather, they would say if you believed in the gospel through faith alone you were justified then and there, yet it wasnt even that easy for Abraham.

And whats your point? If they have weak faith they cant be justified or something? To go down the road of requiring a high level of faith does nothing more than shoot yourself in the foot because you run into such situations as “did I have enough faith that day I believe in the Gospel?”…and as a result lose the “assurance” faith alone was originally supposed to provide.

Hardly, you created a false comparison. Further, with your own Calvinist “Total Depravity” understandings you would most certainly brush off those other men as doing “good” but not in the eyes of God (because unregenerate man cannot please God)…the problem is you not only wouldnt dare say such about Abraham’s position, you have no grounds to, but even worse you cant explain it because he wasnt Justified until 15:6.

The Rom 2:14-16 passage says God judges their hearts, if they meet His requirements then they would be justified.

Where does scripture state that Abraham was justified?

 

[sandusky]

Bishopite:

Well, by your standard of personal interpretation ONLY we can all surely create our own scenario to what we think scripture means; this is a blue print for chaos. Who’s to decide?

The individual; just as you have individually decided.

Bishopite:

Ah…I see. I’m not arguing against private interpretation and have never argued against it, what Catholicism doesn’t allow is private interpretation ALONE without the pillar and foundation of truth

Correct; magisterial interpretation trumps.

Bishopite:

Also, we all can appeal to reason through the scriptures as the Bereans in Acts 17 for through reason we can obviously see that Jesus established a church, wouldn’t you agree?

One doesn’t need reason to know that Jesus is building a church, He clearly states that He is doing so.

Bishopite:

Your postition is that you through your human reason alone gets you to what is true or that the Holy Spirit leads the individual to understand the scriptures, yet this theological novum doesn’t work as evidence of a plethora of denominations.

Borrowing from Catholics, its not either/or, it’s both/and; and it is not a theological novum, but a biblical truth.

Bishopite:

Prior to the reformation there wasn’t a plethora of competing churches all using scripture alone as their authority.

There wasn’t a plethora of churches, but there were churches that rejected Rome.

Bishopite:

And when is one regenerated?

When one believes.

Bishopite:

Yep. You don’t believe in John 20:21-23?

I do, and I think you’ve missed the point; you claim that your infused righteousness eradicates sin, and yet, you still do sin, and even fall from grace, and even lose your righteousness. I’ll stick with God’s imputed righteousness, and with all of the promises, and assurance He gives along with it.

Bishopite:

Cosmic? No supernatural, yes 1 Peter 1:4, we are partakers of His divine nature. The Eastern Orthodox call this theosis.

I see; so grace is not a cosmic substance, but a supernatural substance.

Where does scripture say that grace is a supernatural substance?

 

[Linkowski]

I read an essay by James Akin yesterday that tried to give scriptural support for a mixture of sanctification and justification. Unfortunately, it is in error and the credibility of Mr. Akin compromised in my eyes (sorry, I had the article link and lost it). The idea in the article was this…

Passage Used

Ro 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed (same word for justified) from sin.

The context, Mr. Akin was saying, is about sanctification - but then, he states, the greek word for justified pops up in verse 7!
The conclusion was that justification and sanctification are intermingled. However, this passage is speaking to the idea that we are sanctified at salvation - a past event. There is progressive sanctification and positional sanctification.

Also, at justification, we are freed from the law…therefore freed from sin…what does that mean. The answer is in Romans 7:

Ro 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT COVET.”
8 But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.
9 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;
10 and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me;
11 for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.

This passage indicates a past event and not a progressive process…

Romans 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

So, when we become free from the law we become free from the law in the sense that we are no longer servant to the law (which includes the 10 commandments - as indicated by verse 7). You see then, how the law works sin…but then becoming freed from the law…we now can serve righteousness. So, the passage in Romans 6 is not speaking of progressive sanctification (so that we can say justification is also progressive), but positional sanctification, a past event…

1Co 6:11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Once justified - the next step is glorification! Freed from the law AND ITS PENALTY… Ro 8:33 Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies;

Romans 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Here is where we have the major upper hand…we can show very clearly from scripture that it is TAUGHT as a past event. You, on the other hand, have foggy speculation. I would rather look into a clear mirror to get the picture correct than a foggy one.

May God Show Us…/