"Forensic Justification" makes no sense

[guanophore]

Of the heterodox which one is ortho?

Not sure I understand this question. The orthodox position is that which the Apostles’ believed and taught. The heterodox would be the one that was invented during the Reformation. If there are two heterodox positions, then by definition, neither of them is orthodox.

Is this about understanding their point of view? We understand their point of view and presumably they do ours. Do you think Scott Hahn and Beckwith and all the others did not understand their own point of view when they were protestants?

I do not get the sense that you understand their point of view. Especially from their perspective. You seem to understand it from your own framework. I don’t think most Christians contaminated by Calvanism understand the orthodox (Catholic) point of view at all. I have yet to meet one here on CAF that is not attacking strawmen, or what they have been erronously given to believe about Catholicism. Yes, I think that Hahn and Beckwith understood, but most Reformed Christians have not put in the level of research they have.
benedictus2;8328990:
We’ve gone past that. The question here is “which one is right?”.

Sorry. I was late to the thread, and clearly made a mess of things trying to understand your meanings. I beg many pardons.

Was that ever in question?

When you take the stance that the position cannot be defended Scripturally it seems like it is in question. They find ways to defend all of their doctrines Scripturally. There are legal terms used in Scripture that can be understood to support the concept of forensic justification.

But again, the whole point of this discussion is : which one is correct?

Since they don’t know they have the lenses on, they will most likely think that their view is the correct one.

And you tell me you are not being relativist.

Maybe you can help me understand why this seems to you like relativism?

How does the observation that there are a plethora of interpretations of Scripture equates to the observer being a “relativist”?

 

[guanophore]

When I say a post is stupid I show why it is so.

All I am saying is that it is possible, and I think preferable, to show why a post or a position is not logical without calling it “stupid”. It is degrading, not just to the product of another persons’ expression, but mostly for the person using the disparaging term.

 

[benedictus2]

Not sure I understand this question. The orthodox position is that which the Apostles’ believed and taught. The heterodox would be the one that was invented during the Reformation. If there are two heterodox positions, then by definition, neither of them is orthodox.

Of all the differing doctrines which one is right?

That should be the guiding principle.

 

[benedictus2]

All I am saying is that it is possible, and I think preferable, to show why a post or a position is not logical without calling it “stupid”. It is degrading, not just to the product of another persons’ expression, but mostly for the person using the disparaging term.

There are some statements that are really downright stupid. You don’t go calling every wrong position stupid. But there are those that truly deserve that.

 

[benedictus2]

When you take the stance that the position cannot be defended Scripturally it seems like it is in question. They find ways to defend all of their doctrines Scripturally. There are legal terms used in Scripture that can be understood to support the concept of forensic justification.

You see this is why we go round and round and get nowhere.

I already said was that ever in question and still you say that it seems it is like it is in question.

Since they don’t know they have the lenses on, they will most likely think that their view is the correct one.

And here again you go down the relativistic path. They may be convinced that their view is correct and I may be convinced that my view is correct, but in an “or” situation only one view can be correct. And that is the whole point of debate - to ferret out the truth.

This is the kind of post that I find frustrating. You seem to have the impression that this discussion is just about I say my point and you say your point and both points are equally valid so let’s all go hug and kiss.

And that answers your question about relativism too.

 

[guanophore]

You really think that is Catholic teaching?

Absolutely I do. This is one of the major sticking points I have had debating with Christians who espouse irresistable grace. Those that believe that all of our sins, past, present and future, were all paid for at the foot of the cross no longer espouse the idea that sin separates us from God. They believe that nothing they do or say can interfere with their eternal dwelling with God.

On the contrary, the Apostles taught that the nature of sin has not changed, and that post-baptismal sin can separate us from the imperishable inheritance that is preserved for us in heaven.

   Please, we are not talking here about what Catholic Tom and Dick and Protestant Harry, believes. We are talking here about doctrine. What Reformed doctrine is and what Catholic teaching is.  You keep inserting this erroneous individual Catholic beliefs as if they are the teachings of the Church. That is why this thing gets muddled.

Clearly I did not express myself well, because I was not talking about individual Catholics, but what Reformed Christians are taught about what we believe. Since they have a deficient concept of salvation, they think we believe Catholics can attain salvation, then lose it.

So what? We stop talking about it just because their understanding is too ingrained? That is very lame.

What about using a different approach?

 Those who think will get it. Those who don't won't. You can't sway anyone. The most you can do is present it like it is and hope that some sense gets through.

I agree, but if one approach does not work, another may. I was just watching a documentary about General MacArthur and the Korean war. He had a very novel new direction that drove the communists north over the 38th parallel. If he had taken up the battle at Pyongyang, it would not have been nearly so successful. Brilliant strategy. Why dig one’s heels into a place where victory is slim or impossible?

Again, so what?

If you are trying to pursuade someone to a new point of view, persisting on what is a moot point to them would not be very productive, do you think?

From the moment I joined CAF I have used that font.  Others use bigger ones.  Have you told them off yet?

Yes.

I just don’t usually respond to your posts, because I am in agreement with them, so I have not had this struggle before.
benedictus2;8329064:

I don't have a problem because I type the start and end quotes myself.

Right. But since this is salient to the issue, have you ever considered how your method is affecting those you are addressing? How it might be creating difficulty for others?

If you want to get rid of any formatting, click on the A with the red cross next to the font type. (Top left corner of the editing screen) But highlight the entire text first.

If you don’t mind, then I will do that. I thought perhaps you felt a need for exacerbated emphasis.

I have been wondering what is going on with you! I even put it down to you disliking the fact that I brought to your attention that the blind men analogy is false.

Apparently I am just going through a period of oversensitivity. Please pray for me. I apparently missed your response to the blind men analogy. I will go back and try to find it, so I can see if I dislike it.

In trying to be more effective in my dialogue with my Reformed Brethren, I am trying to put myself in their shoes when I read the rebuttals.

Not interested in debate? You wanted mushy mushy, I just stuck to debate. Go ahead, read my responses from the time I commented about nominalism.

I am not really sure what “mushy mushy” means, but I don’t think one needs to be uncharitable or use insults like “stupid” in rebutting a point of theology. I don’t think that enhances discourse.

As for appreciating coming to this thread, it is rather strange to tell me you posted the answers on another thread but ommited to give a link.

My bad. I thought since others found it then it was visible.

So what? It drives a point. And for someone who thinks, the penny will drop.

What about those whose pennies don’t drop?

If you  just stick to reason and do away with the mush, the conversation will flow better.  There's another CAF member on another thread who is so good to talk to because he/she does just that. No mush, just reason.

Point me to it, perhaps I can learn.

 

[guanophore]

Which thread?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8329142#post8329142

Are you equating what happens at baptism with forensic justification?

You need to bear in mind that the justification that Luther speaks of is not what happens at baptism.

Only loosly. Catholics believe that we are justified in baptism, so when talking to a person who believes a persons is justified when they say the saving prayer that is a point of comparison. Most of the things the “justification by faith alone” folks assert occurs at that time, the CC teaches occur in baptism.

Do you believe that? Do you believe that God cannot see your sins because you have been covered by the blood of Christ? Is that how you understand the salvific nature of Christ’s blood? That you are in fact dung heap covered with snow? So we have a heaven full of dung heaps covered with snow?

No, but it is not about what I believe, but the errors that have been taught to those who are contaminated by the Calvanist theology.

What has all that got to do with my statement that if justification is forensic then God is lying to Himself by declaring us just when we are not? Do the above support this?

The above scriptures are used to support the position that it is not a lie, that indeed, when God looks upon us, we are the righteousness of God in Christ. That our faith has been “reckoned” (accounted to us) as righteousness.

But is this discussion about why they interpret it that way or is this about whether such an exegesis is erroneous or not?

For you, I am not sure. For myself, it is about why the exegesis is erroneous. If you just want to simply say it is “stupid”, then I don’t think any productive discussion can really take place. If you don’t understand why they interpret the verses that way, then how can you hope to make much progress?

  This is not about why the error was made but whether it is an error or not.

I don’t think the two can be separated. As you accurately stated in the other thread, evil begats more evil. If the foundation upon which the error is made is false, then nothing can emanate from it but error.

Remember, while those born Protestant are not liable for believing erroneously (unless they have bee presented with the truth and obstinately cling to their misconceptions), Luther had no excuse because he knew the correct exegesis yet he proceeded to manufacture one anyway.

I think that the eternal state of Luther’s soul is beyond the scope of this thread, as well as the scope of our perogatives as Catholics. Honestly, we can’t assume that he was taught the correct exegesis. Once he got his own copy of the Scriptures, he found a great deal of things that he could not reconcile with what he had been taught. All we know is that it seemed to him that forensic justification made sense.

 

[guanophore]

 Kindly show how my posts indicate that I do not wish to DISCUSS and DIALOGUE.

That is the message that comes across when you call the other position “stupid”.

From where I am sitting that is exactly what I was doing until you got on your “charitable” and “tolerant” high horse and accused me of being “intolerant” and “uncharitable” from out of nowhere (which is actually an intolerant and uncharitable thing to do sans proof).

Then I apologize. It is not possible for me to “prove” my perceptions to you. If what you are saying comes across as though you are not interested in dialogue, and uncharitable, it is my perception. I am trying to give you feedback. It seems that you consider this a request for you to be “mushy”. So be it.
benedictus2;8328728:

I suggest you go back to my initial reply to you regarding nominalism and follow it from there and point out where I have shown a resistance to DISCUSS and DIALOGUE.

I will go back and read, because obviously I missed some posts. Regardless, use of the term “stupid” will come across as unwilling to dialogue and discuss. It is a communication blocker.

And for some reason or another, you have jumped to the conclusion that I am somehow “hitting  protestant with bricks” for being protestant.  **For the record all I have ever addressed is the error in the teaching. That -  is -  all. ** Except Luthers’ scrupulosity which affected his theology.

It just seems that way. There is a disdaining tone, especially with regard to Luther. That is why I asked you if you actually read any of his work. He was clearly a very tortured soul. While I don’t affirm his method of assuaging his suffering (departing from the doctrine of the faith) I can have compassion on his suffering.

    How is my first and succeeding replies to you similar to this?

Sometime you may be able to come back and read them and maybe you will see them differently. I know that has happened for me with some of my posts.

 And if something is in error, should we just say in "tolerant" and"chartable" fashion : Yea I get why you came to that conclusion. That's okay. That's your truth, this is mine.

It is quite possible to say the first, without saying the second. How does it take from you to be able to say “I get why you came to that conclusion”? Does it weaken your position somehow? Does it weaken Orthodox faith?

And another point, a lot of threads start that way. Please show how it is unproductive.

The only reason they have any productivity is because Catholics here do not respond in the same uncharitable tone.

How is asking "Is Sola Fide very Catholic? " throwing the baby with the bath water?

You did not answer my question. How does affirming what is Catholic in the position of others take away from you? Obviously the Vatican has done this…
benedictus2;8328728:

You’ve danced around the question: Is Sola Fide very Catholic?

Yes. See above link. There are many aspects of it that are quite Catholic, as the Church affirms in the cited document.

 You can’t escape the split between justification and sanctification and the fact that justification is forensic. You cannot escape the error.

This is not a problem for me, since escape is not my objective.

 

[benedictus2]

That is the message that comes across when you call the other position “stupid”.

And how does stating that something is stupid (and showing why it is stupid) an indication of a refusal to DISCUSS and DIALOGUE.

Further more please show where in our current discussion I called a position stupid.

I think it will help you if you took the time to go back to my very first response to you and follow our conversation from there.

Please read them with a calm mind so you’re not continually jumping to conclusions.

 

[guanophore]

And how does stating that something is stupid (and showing why it is stupid) an indication of a refusal to DISCUSS and DIALOGUE.

Using that kind of language does not commend itself to scholarly discourse. Personally, I find it offensive, and it does not give me the impression that the other person wants to have a productive discussion. I usually report such things to the mods. I find that people who use that approach often get suspended or banned. Of course, it is only the tip of a rude iceberg, and it is the rest of the berg that causes their participation here to fail.

Further more please show where in our current discussion I called a position stupid.

You have just (above) justified that there seems nothing wrong with using this term.

I think it will help you if you took the time to go back to my very first response to you and follow our conversation from there.

I do too. Thanks.

Please read them with a calm mind so you’re not continually jumping to conclusions.

I will make every effort to do this.

 

[guanophore]

Of all the differing doctrines which one is right?

That should be the guiding principle.

I can only surmise by this response that you did not read my post carefully.

There are some statements that are really downright stupid. You don’t go calling every wrong position stupid. But there are those that truly deserve that.

You are educated and articulate, and certainly dont’ need to abase yourself to this level.

If we always dished out what was deserved, there would be WAY too many debasing assessments of this kind. It is not conducive to constructive dialogue.

You see this is why we go round and round and get nowhere.

I already said was that ever in question and still you say that it seems it is like it is in question.

You seemed confused and frustrated that I would ask. I am explaining why it seems to me that you don’t want to have a productive discussion. When you won’t acknowledge that you can understand how your opposing party extracts their ideas from Scripture it is a conversation block.

I am glad you can see that inability to affirm your opponents position makes the conversation go round and round, and gets you nowhere.

And here again you go down the relativistic path. They may be convinced that their view is correct and I may be convinced that my view is correct, but in an “or” situation only one view can be correct. And that is the whole point of debate - to ferret out the truth.

I think you may not understand what relativism means. Clearly you don’t apply the term properly with regard to our discussion. Understanding and appreciating (being able to articulate) an opposing position does not require that one espouse it.

This is the kind of post that I find frustrating.

If you find this frustrating, wait till you get a really well entrenched Reformed dispensationalist.

And that answers your question about relativism too.

No, it doesn’t. The question was, can you articulate the opposing opinion without espousing it. Can you grasp that relativism relates to embracing, not articulating?

 

[benedictus2]

You have just (above) justified that there seems nothing wrong with using this term.

You did not answer my question. Please cite in our discussion where I have referred to a position as stupid. What I said about its justification is not evidence that I have used that (so far) in our discussion.

You have this habit of hurling personal insults without being able to back them up.

At least if I ever call a statement stupid I can back it up.

Either you start coming up with proof or desist and confine your replies to what is written supporting your point with reason, facts and logic.

Playing the sanctimonious proxy moderator just derails the thread.

 

[guanophore]

You did not answer my question. Please cite in our discussion where I have referred to a position as stupid. What I said about its justification is not evidence that I have used that (so far) in our discussion.

You have this habit of hurling personal insults without being able to back them up.

At least if I ever call a statement stupid I can back it up.

Either you start coming up with proof or desist and confine your replies to what is written supporting your point with reason, facts and logic.

Playing the sanctimonious proxy moderator just derails the thread.

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.

All I am saying is that I dont’ think it is an effective or pursuasive method.

 

[benedictus2]

All I am saying is that I dont’ think it is an effective or pursuasive method.

So you honestly believe that it is not a stupid statement?

And the explanation was a sanitation. Luther also claimed that he can commit adultery and it would be all okay. Some people try to sanitize his statements by putting it down to his predilection for hyperbole.

 

[benedictus2]

If we always dished out what was deserved, there would be WAY too many debasing assessments of this kind. It is not conducive to constructive dialogue.

And that was exactly my point. You don’t call every statement stupid even when they are.

You seemed confused and frustrated that I would ask. I am explaining why it seems to me that you don’t want to have a productive discussion. When you won’t acknowledge that you can understand how your opposing party extracts their ideas from Scripture it is a conversation block.

But we are past that. How we understand things and how Protestants understand things - that has been debated to the hilt. If after reading conversion stories and being in this forums - a Catholic still does not understand why Protestants think that way - then there is something wrong somewhere.

All the reasonings - we already know all that.And I am sure the Protestants know all our reasonings too.

We are past that now. We are now trying to sort out this: they believe A and we believe B. Which one is true. That is where we should be at now.

That is why the norminalistic influence on Reformed Theology has got to be explored because this is what underpins their forensic understanding.

And I am not the only one who is making that point. No less than an ex president of the Evangelical Theological Society and and English theologian has said so.

We need to understand what impact this bankrupt philosophy has on Luther’s theology. The Church never believed in this split between J and S nor on a purely forensic justification.

The purely forensic understanding has so many loopholes in it and we need to expose those loopholes.

P.S. Please don’t cut this response at the wrong points. It gives the wrong idea altogether when you detach a portion which actually belongs with the second and third quotes.

I am glad you can see that inability to affirm your opponents position makes the conversation go round and round, and gets you nowhere.

That is not quite what I said.

I think you may not understand what relativism means.

Oh yes I do.

Clearly you don’t apply the term properly with regard to our discussion.

Oh yes I do too. You keep saying that this is all about understanding the opposing positoin. So I do understand. So what now?

That is what I have been driving at all this time. What now?

You seem to be quite happy for this “what now” to be the affirmation of the veracity of the opposite point. As I have said before, if this is an “either/or” case, that position is relativistic.

It is one thing to say that you understand where they are coming from, it is another to say that their position is true, becuase if their position is true, being an “either/or” situation, then that means the Catholic position is false.

To get out of that quandary, the only other option is to show that this is not an either/or situation and hence can both be true at the same time.

If you find this frustrating, wait till you get a really well entrenched Reformed dispensationalist.

I pick my battles. If I don’t know what their position is I would not even venture. For a long whle I would not venture into the Philosphy forums because I was uncertain of the positions of agnostics and atheists.

No, it doesn’t. The question was, can you articulate the opposing opinion without espousing it. Can you grasp that relativism relates to embracing, not articulating?

Is that not exactly what I did in my first and second response to you in the original thread.?

 

[guanophore]

So you honestly believe that it is not a stupid statement?

I can understand why you would see it that way.

I have read much worse here on CAF. My point is that it is not always productive to pejoratively label the position of your opponent.

When I read that post, I got the impression you were not really willing to have a conversation about the topic. If you just want to lambast and debase your opponent, productive reflection will not occur.

 And the explanation was a sanitation. Luther also claimed that he can commit adultery and it would be all okay. Some people try to sanitize his statements by putting it down to his predilection for hyperbole.

Luther definitely had a predilection for hyperbole. Some of his really outrageous comments were made for the same reason Jesus made His. People could say that it is “stupid” for Jesus to command people to pluck out their eyes. Or, they could take a more charitable and scholarly approach to understand what point he was trying to make.

 

[guanophore]

But we are past that. How we understand things and how Protestants understand things - that has been debated to the hilt. If after reading conversion stories and being in this forums - a Catholic still does not understand why Protestants think that way - then there is something wrong somewhere.

Ok, bene. I will leave it at that. It does not appear to me that you understand where your opponents are coming from, but I will defer to your royal “we” here. I will accept that you believe you are beyond that.

All the reasonings - we already know all that.And I am sure the Protestants know all our reasonings too.

I will defer to your surety. It does not appear that way to me, but I can let it go.

 We are past that now. We are now trying to sort out this: they believe A and we believe B. Which one is true. That is where we should be at now.

Ok.

P.S. Please don’t cut this response at the wrong points. It gives the wrong idea altogether when you detach a portion which actually belongs with the second and third quotes.

I am glad that you are clear about which parts go together. Since that is the case, it really doesn’t matter if your reader does, or not, does it? It is kinda like using a font that is “loud” and difficult to embed in a reply. It works for you, so what else matters?

That is not quite what I said.

Doggone! I was hoping a light bulb went on!

 Oh yes I do.

I accept that you believe you know. Your posts demonstrate otherwise. What matters most, though, is that you make sense to yourself.

Oh yes I do too. You keep saying that this is all about understanding the opposing positoin. So I do understand. So what now?

I suspect you will keep doing what you have been doing, wont’ you?

That is what I have been driving at all this time. What now?  You seem to be quite happy for this "what now" to be the affirmation of the veracity of the opposite point. As I have said before, if this is an "either/or" case, that position is relativistic.

I will accept that we have a different conception of the meaning of relatavism.

 It is one thing to say that you understand where they are coming from, it is another to say that their position is true, becuase if their position is true, being an "either/or" situation, then that means the Catholic position is false.

Yes, it is. But if you cannot articulate their position (understand from the opposing point of view), it does not seem that your righteous indignation will get you very far.

To get out of that quandary, the only other option is to show that this is not an either/or situation and hence can both be true at the same time.

I am sure you are right.

I pick my battles. If I don’t know what their position is I would not even venture. For a long whle I would not venture into the Philosphy forums because I was uncertain of the positions of agnostics and atheists.

Perhaps we can now move on from this one, and you can pick another?

Is that not exactly what I did in my first and second response to you in the original thread.?

If you feel that way, then I will accept that this is what you believe you did. I will agree to disagree with you.

Peace.

 

[benedictus2]

I do not agree with this. Some Catholics do. Many Catholics do not. Many Catholics including the former Protestant Catholics like Scott Hahn discusses both elements, legal and covenantal views and concludes that one is wrong and one is right. As Scott says, when you read Trent and the interpretation of the Book of Romans…The Catholic Church got it Right. Frustration is related to those that do not see, accept, understand that there are opposing views not two equally good views.

I have looked at the Forensic view and see it as an attempt to “justify” no pun intended a view that does not stand up to time and the Scripture when scrutinized.

Scott Hahn makes the point that when reading the Book of Romans, where these notions come from, the “backdrop” of the letter or the scenes that the letter is written from are Covenants not courtrooms. There is no mention of any courtroom in the Book of Romans. There is lots about Covenant. Once the notion of Covenant is understood, Scott says, the entire Protestant argument caves in. He should know, it caved in for him as he tried to “justify” what he opposed.

He opposed what he now proposes and teaches simpletons like me.

Water in parched land!

 

[guanophore]

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.

You say that you understand the position of your opponent, yet you make this comment that their position “makes no sense”. Further, you indicate that it makes no sense because of something that is considered Catholic doctrine that has been retained by them.

Help me understand why you say it “makes absolutely no sense” that a Christian should live a life that befits repentance?

Reformed Christians believe that we are transformed daily into the character of Christ (progressively). This is a Catholic concept that has been retained. Why does this “make no sense”?

 

[benedictus2]

Ok, bene. I will leave it at that. It does not appear to me that you understand where your opponents are coming from, but I will defer to your royal “we” here. I will accept that you believe you are beyond that.

Ok, So condescension must work for you

I am glad that you are clear about which parts go together. Since that is the case, it really doesn’t matter if your reader does, or not, does it? It is kinda like using a font that is “loud” and difficult to embed in a reply. It works for you, so what else matters?

.
Here’s one example:

You cut my post here: “Put it this way, they’ve been made clean but they can get dirty again.” and went on and on about it, when the rest of the explanation was here: “However, with forensic justification it means they are still dirty but somehow God says they’re clean. And then to prove that statement true, He proceeds to wash them clean.”

Doggone! I was hoping a light bulb went on!

Sigh! To refresh your memory, I said “was that ever in question” and you still waffled on and on as if it were in question. It’s like you just didn’t understand what “was that ever in question” meant when it is such a simple statement. There definitely was no light bulb going on there. And you somehow came to the conclusion that I was agreeing with you that we must affirm the other’s position.

I accept that you believe you know. Your posts demonstrate otherwise. What matters most, though, is that you make sense to yourself.

Actually it is your post that seem to display this lack of understanding of relativism. You seem to think “that you have your truth and I have my truth and that’s all okay” is not relativistic.

I suspect you will keep doing what you have been doing, wont’ you?

Why not? Won’t you keep doing what you have been doing?

Yes, it is. But if you cannot articulate their position (understand from the opposing point of view), it does not seem that your righteous indignation will get you very far.

So you don’t think I have articulated their position? What an inarticulate theologian E.L Mascal must be, considering that it was his text that I used to “articulate” my position. But it seems you didn’t get it or you will not be going on and on about “not articulating their position”.

And there you go again with “your predilection for hyperbole”. Righteous indignation. FYI there was no righteous indignation in my responses. They were mere statements of facts which you seem to shy away from. You like to create drama.

I am sure you are right.

On that one, so am I.

Perhaps we can now move on from this one, and you can pick another?

Why?

If you feel that way, then I will accept that this is what you believe you did. I will agree to disagree with you.

No I don’t FEEL that way. It IS that way. And you will know that too if you had only bothered to understand what I wrote before you went charging on your moral high horse.

And yes, you debase yourself that way - subtle and seemingly classy, but still debasement. But I’ll let you work that one out.