"Forensic Justification" makes no sense

[guanophore]

This discussion emerged in a thread where it was off topic, so I decided to start a new thread for my reply.

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.

I am not following your thought here. Do you think that people always act in perfect harmony with their beliefs?

Do you think Catholics, who also believe that a justified person should bear fruit that befits repentans never fall into sin?

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

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.

Do you believe that the sin nature is removed in baptism?

Do you not agree that persons who are justified and sanctified in baptism can afterward engage in sinful behavior?

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.

If purgatory is not at the point of death, what point does it occur?

The Church teaches that Purgatory, like heaven and hell, are outside of time. Projecting our finite notion of time into eternal realities will cause misunderstanding. For God, it is “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye”. It stands to reason that souls in purgatory, freed from the “time” of this world, don’t experience it.

And there is no need to shout. Shouting makes it harder to work with your quotes.

 

[guanophore]

So I suppose Scott Hahn, Beckwith, et all did not understand their faith.
If you’ve read it then why ask me what I mean about Luther’s nominalism and what I mean by forensic justification? He went into a very thorough analysis of it in the second half of the book.

Your tone comes across as accusatory, somewhat defensive, and not very open to dialogue. What is it about this subject that gets you so frustrated? I am finding your posts on this topic very out of character for you.

So you do understand what forensic means. And you are right it is legal language. It essentially declares someone just whether that someone is indeed just or not.

Paul used legal terms to talk about justification. The Reformed Christians understand the meaning of these legal terms differently than Catholics do.

Paul clearly meant that we are actually sanctified, not only declared just. Since Paul used these legal terms, then clearly it is not just a declaration that one is just when one is not, since Paul is Catholic, and meant what the Catholic Church believes and teaches.

A court of law can declare you not guilty even if you are guilty.

Yes, but Paul is talking about our status before God. I think, no matter what other disagreements we may have, we will both agree that God will not declare someone guilty if they are not.

How exactly does Paul’s scolding them for behaving badly prove that the justification we had at baptism is forensic? Are you saying that the Church was wrong all along?

There are legal aspects to what occurs in baptism.

Baptized persons can still sin.

The Church teaches that Baptism removes all sin, both original and personal. It does NOT remove concupiscence.

 Yes, I say so.

In that case, I think it is best that I just leave you to your “say so”. That seems to be your goal here, is to have your “say so”.

 So now you are saying that Beckwith's presentation is wild polemic.  I thought you said it was a "good read".

I asked you if you had read Luther’s writing on Sanctification, or if you are only reading quotes of Luther from another author. I said nothing about Beckwith’s book. If you use the little blue icon next to the poster’s name, you can scroll back through the response to which the quotes are linked. I will take from your response that you are criticizing Luther and Calvin without having read either of them, but on the basis of Beckwith and Hahn’s books.
benedictus2;8325516:

 McGrath disagrees with you and he's reformed.

OK.

And I don’t know how you can even say that considering you said you read Beckwith. He quotes McGrath there regarding this disjoint.

Reformed Christians do not expereince a “disjoint”. While it looks that way to us because we have followed the logic out, for them, a commitment to sanctification is an essential element of being a Christian.

 And what do you think I have been doing all this time - doodling?

I see a post this morning that the mod finds this off topic as well. I know it may seem on track in your mind, because you seem to believe that the concept of “forensic justification” has contaminated Christianity, and introduced evil into Christendom. But the finer points of justification by faith alone are clearly a sidetrack.

 So where is it stated in the above verses that justification and sanctification are two separate processes and that a forensic justification happens first followed by sanctification?

Calvin taught total depravity. For that reason, he believed that man cannot respond to God’s grace without first being regenerated. He taught that regenerated persons have a new nature, and by that nature, desired to seek and obey God. Therefore, every person who is regenerated by the Holy Spirit is justified before HIm, and such a soul desires to please his Father through becoming the person God intended for him to be.

Although I don’t agree with Calvin’s arrival to this conclusion, the conclusion is certainly Catholic. God expects us to conform ourselves to the image of Christ. I have also known a number of Reformed Christians who practice a life of holiness that far surpasses that of the cafeteria Catholic.

    And did I ever question that?

If you agree that Reformed Christians consider sanctification an essential part of the Christian life, I fail to understand why you seem so frustrated and adamant about how they get there.

 

[guanophore]

 Huh :confused:  Two different interpretations , one contradicting the other are equally valid and both are as accurate as the one handed down to us from the apostles ?!

YOu seemed to imply that understanding the heterodox position of Reformed Christianity was “relativism”. Relativism is not understanding a heterodox point of view, but accepting the heterodox position as equally valid.

Of course Reformed Christians believe that their view is from the Apostles because they extracted it from Scripture.

 You will if you affirm they are equally valid and equally true.

Yes, but one need not do so to understand an opposing point of view. It really helps, when having dialogue or discussion (something you don’t seem to want to do right now) to understand where the other person came up with their conclusions.

 I don't know which Reformed Christian you are talking about then.

All Reformed Christians believe their faith comes from the Scriptures. They are taught to interpret the verses through the lens of Calvanism, and don’t even realize that the writers meant something different. Catholics read the legal terminology through the lens of Catholicism, that is why we understand it differently.

There was another website (I will have to dig it up) who actually made a thorough analysis of the difference in understanding and I read it before I read Beckwith. Beckwith confirmed it. As a matter of fact CopticC also made a similar point a few posts back.

Thanks, I would be happy to study it.

Legal language but not merely legal implication.

We read it this way because we read through the lens of the faith that was handed down to us. Reformed Christians have been separated form the Sacred Tradition for 500+ years, so all they have left is their interpretation of Scripture, which has as many meanings as people have belly buttons.

 

[guanophore]

The parameters of the Covenant are the basis for the entire Jewish legal and judicial system. I don’t disagree with Hahn. I think Calvin misunderstood this concept, though. Therefore, his use of forensic language comes out with entirely different meanings than what Paul was teaching.

So therefore Paul was teaching a purely legalistic justification? You and the Reformed understanding are both correct and the Church is wrong?

You seem to have some kind of dark sunglasses on today, and you are not able to see or read what I am writing. Please take a deep breath, put in some eye drops or something and try reading it again. I bolded part of it to help you.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You know what I believe, no-one, and I mean absolutely no-one goes straight to heaven without the Sacrements and living the Sermon on the Mount. Thus you would need be a Saint…PERIOD.

Right, “time” is our cross to bear as humanity as a teaching tool. When there is no other knowledge of Gods Kingdom to be known? It will cease to exist. We must acknowledge that Miracles happen daily. That is God collapsing time before our eyes. The Mystics, Eucharist, etc are all examples of this.

However I don’t perceive Purgatory as a bad thing. That is the LIGHT. However, it is not Heaven.

Peace

 

[JonNC]

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?

We all lead not-so-exemplary lives, if one recognizes that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Paul muses about this himself - the good that I would, that I do not. The wrong that I would not, that I do.
He says that sin is always there, yet he is justified in Christ.

I’ve never viewed sanctification as occurring in an instant, other than in Baptism. Sanctification is growing in grace, by striving to lead a Godly life, with the help of the Holy Spirit, participating in word and sacrament (confession/Absolution and the Supper), and loving one’s neighbor as oneself, IOW, following Christ’s commands. We are at once, saint and sinner. Without sanctification, that growth in grace, there is no justification.

Jon

 

[GaryTaylor]

We all lead not-so-exemplary lives, if one recognizes that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Paul muses about this himself - the good that I would, that I do not. The wrong that I would not, that I do.
He says that sin is always there, yet he is justified in Christ.

I’ve never viewed sanctification as occurring in an instant, other than in Baptism. Sanctification is growing in grace, by striving to lead a Godly life, with the help of the Holy Spirit, participating in word and sacrament (confession/Absolution and the Supper), and loving one’s neighbor as oneself, IOW, following Christ’s commands. We are at once, saint and sinner. Without sanctification, that growth in grace, there is no justification.

Jon

I would have to agree here my brother. You know what through Jon, when we are talking St. Paul or really any of the Saints. Many talk about themselves as you say St. Paul “muse’s”. I know in the last translation of St Teresa of Avila she called herself “wicked” so many time’s they actually cut half out That conflict and strive to remain in a perpetual state of grace is for sure not an easy road. The closer one come’s the more your own reality occur’s to you in your state of being. So there is a paradox that drives one foward also.

Suffering is sanctification also. Jesus pretty much explains this to the Apostles when the question of St Paul becoming an Apostle comes into play. Or “pick up your Cross and follow me”.

I have to admit, I am not a big fan of pain either. I must state though there is relief through prayer. The Lord is your Grace in this aspect.

Peace

 

[guanophore]

We all lead not-so-exemplary lives, if one recognizes that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Paul muses about this himself - the good that I would, that I do not. The wrong that I would not, that I do.
He says that sin is always there, yet he is justified in Christ.

I’ve never viewed sanctification as occurring in an instant, other than in Baptism. Sanctification is growing in grace, by striving to lead a Godly life, with the help of the Holy Spirit, participating in word and sacrament (confession/Absolution and the Supper), and loving one’s neighbor as oneself, IOW, following Christ’s commands. We are at once, saint and sinner. Without sanctification, that growth in grace, there is no justification.

Jon

Thanks Jon! I was just about to go fetch you so you could testify. :clapping:

 

[JonNC]

=GaryTaylor;8326392]I would have to agree here my brother. You know what through Jon, when we are talking St. Paul or really any of the Saints. Many talk about themselves as you say St. Paul “muse’s”. I know in the last translation of St Teresa of Avila she called herself “wicked” so many time’s they actually cut half out That conflict and strive to remain in a perpetual state of grace is for sure not an easy road. The closer one come’s the more your own reality occur’s to you in your state of being. So there is a paradox that drives one foward also.

Yes. And for us the regenerate, it ought to drive us to the cross, where we find the only strength that can maintain and sustain us. It ought to drive us to the saints, whose examples of the Godly life gives us something to emulate. And it ought to drive us to the word, sacraments and the Church, God’s gifts of sanctifying grace made available to us.

Suffering is sanctification also. Jesus pretty much explains this to the Apostles when the question of St Paul becoming an Apostle comes into play. Or “pick up your Cross and follow me”.

I have to admit, I am not a big fan of pain either. I must state though there is relief through prayer. The Lord is your Grace in this aspect.

Agreed.

Peace

And also with you.

Jon

 

[CopticChristian]

This discussion emerged in a thread where it was off topic, so I decided to start a new thread for my reply.

I am not following your thought here. Do you think that people always act in perfect harmony with their beliefs?

Do you think Catholics, who also believe that a justified person should bear fruit that befits repentans never fall into sin?

Do you believe that the sin nature is removed in baptism?

Do you not agree that persons who are justified and sanctified in baptism can afterward engage in sinful behavior?

If purgatory is not at the point of death, what point does it occur?

The Church teaches that Purgatory, like heaven and hell, are outside of time. Projecting our finite notion of time into eternal realities will cause misunderstanding. For God, it is “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye”. It stands to reason that souls in purgatory, freed from the “time” of this world, don’t experience it.

And there is no need to shout. Shouting makes it harder to work with your quotes.

Catholics read the legal terminology through the lens of Catholicism, that is why we understand it differently.

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.

 

[guanophore]

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.

My Reformed brethren like to use this Pauline expression:

Col 2:13-15
13 And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 having canceled the **bond **which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in him.

The word translated “bond” here is actually “dogma”, which refers to law, whether civil or ecclesiastical.

It is cancelled in the sense that it is blotted out or “smeared” away.

He seems to be making reference here to the legal demands contained in the Mosaic covenant.

Another one is adoption. What does God do, they say, if you fall from grace, unadopt you?

Gal 4:4-7
God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7 So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir.

Adoption has legal aspects now, just as it did then.

Paul writing about our spiritual state in the past tense I think is one of the stumbling blocks for Reformed Christians.

Rom 5:7-11
8 But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11 Not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received our reconciliation.

His tense here indicates that we have already been justified, and “will be saved” because reconciliation has already occurred. This is one of the reasons they think salvation happened one point in time, for all time.

 

[benedictus2]

This discussion emerged in a thread where it was off topic, so I decided to start a new thread for my reply.

I am not following your thought here. Do you think that people always act in perfect harmony with their beliefs?

Do you think Catholics, who also believe that a justified person should bear fruit that befits repentans never fall into sin?

But you just wrote above that a justified person will live a life that befits repentance and produce the fruits of the Spirit in their lives. And now you ask this? It makes not sense.

Do you believe that the sin nature is removed in baptism?

If you are talking about concupiscence no. If you mean are we washed clean fit enough for heaven yes.

Do you not agree that persons who are justified and sanctified in baptism can afterward engage in sinful behavior?

Put it this way, they’ve been made clean but they can get dirty again.

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.

As I have said in the other thread, this split between J and S (with forensic J coming before S) means that God lies to Himself then proceeds to make a truth out of the lie.

If purgatory is not at the point of death, what point does it occur?

After death.

The Church teaches that Purgatory, like heaven and hell, are outside of time.

And point of death is IN time.

Projecting our finite notion of time into eternal realities will cause misunderstanding. For God, it is “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye”. It stands to reason that souls in purgatory, freed from the “time” of this world, don’t experience it.

And the twinkling of an eye in eternity is probably a billion years in earth time. So what? You were saying that sanctification happens at the point of death.

And there is no need to shout. Shouting makes it harder to work with your quotes.

Huh! When did I shout?

You are getting into the nasty habit of throwing completely unfounded accusations at me. It seems like you don’t like yourself being questioned. First I was “intolerant” and “uncharitable” then I was supposed to be bashing people with bricks simply for simply being what they are and now I am shouting.

What’s going on there?

Do you do this so that I will look bad and so that you will look like the epitome and champion of tolerance, charity, soft spokenness and ability to dialogue? There is absolutely no need to.

Stick to the topic. That is all that is required.

I am not here to be mushy mushy but to debate about the truth.

 

[benedictus2]

Your tone comes across as accusatory, somewhat defensive, and not very open to dialogue. What is it about this subject that gets you so frustrated? I am finding your posts on this topic very out of character for you.

What in the world is going on with you?

You accuse me of reading only polemical writers and when I respond with the above you tell me my tone is accusatory?

You ask me what all that nominalism and forensic justification is all about then you tell me you’ve read Beckwith and when I ask you why you ask me about all that if you’ve read Beckwith you accuse me of being accusatory, defensive and not to open to dialogue?

This sounds like a cover up for a gaffe, and a nasty cover up at that.
Sorry , but I find you’re being rather nasty while hiding behind this veil of tolerance and charity.

I thought rather highly of you at one stage, but it seems you are unable to take a rebuttal and accept that sometimes you are actually wrong.
If you ask me, you are the one not open to dialogue because when you’re caught you come up with veiled insults (not too harsh lest you sound uncharitable ).

Why couldn’t you just have stuck to reason and to topic?

And what a nice kind thing to say:" * I am finding your posts on this topic very out of character for you"* Condescension at its finest.

For the record, it is very much my character if you read my other other posts.

 

[Alexander_VI]

We cannot go to heaven without the Will of the Father above, and as such he has constituted a father below for us here to listen and follow, what he says is bound and is transcendent from the physics of time. Let us not quarrel amongst ourselves, we should concentrate our efforts towards more heavenly matters.

 

[benedictus2]

Paul used legal terms to talk about justification. The Reformed Christians understand the meaning of these legal terms differently than Catholics do.

**Paul clearly meant that we are actually sanctified, not only declared just. **

Exactly! Exactly! Exactly! my point.

Since Paul used these legal terms, then clearly it is not just a declaration that one is just when one is not, since Paul is Catholic, and meant what the Catholic Church believes and teaches.

Exactly! again.

That is precisely my point. That the correct reading is that it is MORE than just a forensic transaction. But according to Luther it is not. I wonder if you even read the excerpt I included from E.L Mascall.

Yes, but Paul is talking about our status before God. I think, no matter what other disagreements we may have, we will both agree that God will not declare someone guilty if they are not.

And neither will He declare someone not guilty if he is.

There are legal aspects to what occurs in baptism.

Baptized persons can still sin.

The Church teaches that Baptism removes all sin, both original and personal. It does NOT remove concupiscence.

What has all that got to do with pure forensic justification. You are going on and on about something that was never even questioned. It is like a red herring.

In that case, I think it is best that I just leave you to your “say so”. That seems to be your goal here, is to have your “say so”.

Considering everything you have said before, that is no longer anything new.

I asked you if you had read Luther’s writing on Sanctification, or if you are only reading quotes of Luther from another author. I said nothing about Beckwith’s book. If you use the little blue icon next to the poster’s name, you can scroll back through the response to which the quotes are linked. I will take from your response that you are criticizing Luther and Calvin without having read either of them, but on the basis of Beckwith and Hahn’s books.

**Correction : **

You said: It does not seem that you have read or understand much of Luther’s thought. Perhaps you have only read the wild polemic?

And I replied: So now you are saying that Beckwith’s presentation is wild polemic. I thought you said it was a “good read”.

From the very beginning, my response has been based on Beckwith’s analysis of justification. I even cited a long quote from the book, clearly stating this. You said you have read this book and even said it was a good read.

Seriously, if you will read and follow the trend before you reply it will make for easier discussion.

Reformed Christians do not expereince a “disjoint”. While it looks that way to us because we have followed the logic out, for them, a commitment to sanctification is an essential element of being a Christian.

Beckwith was reformed when he came to this conclusion. McGrath as far as I know is still reformed.

I see a post this morning that the mod finds this off topic as well. I know it may seem on track in your mind, because you seem to believe that the concept of “forensic justification” has contaminated Christianity, and introduced evil into Christendom. But the finer points of justification by faith alone are clearly a sidetrack.

It was salient to the point you were making when I first made my reply. Revisit that post.

The thread was about whether the Protestant Reformation did anything good. Highlighting the error in the theology due to an erroneous philosophy was to answer that question in the negative.

If you agree that Reformed Christians consider sanctification an essential part of the Christian life, I fail to understand why you seem so frustrated and adamant about how they get there.

Because the disjoint is a theological novum and is not logical once you consider everything. Isn’t that what we have been discussing all this time?

 

[guanophore]

 But you just wrote above that a justified person will live a life that befits repentance and produce the fruits of the Spirit in their lives.  And now you ask this? It makes not sense.

If you are talking about concupiscence no. If you mean are we washed clean fit enough for heaven yes.

Put it this way, they’ve been made clean but they can get dirty again.

I am asking because reading your posts left me with the impression that you believed those who espouse forensic justificaiton believed otherwise. While I will concede that there are some very poorly catechized Christians that believe all they have to do is say the Jesus prayer, and they will go to heaven no matter what they do, such an attitude does not characterize the teachings of either Luther or Calvin. Both championed leading a holy life in response to having been justified.

You also objected to the “snow covered dunghill” mentality (objectionable without doubt) but seemed to imply that people should no longer be considered “miserable sinners” once they are justified.
benedictus2;8328847:

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.

Yes, but Catholicism teaches that concupiscence remains after grace is infused, and that the “sin nature” is not washed away. This is why many Reformed Christians accuse Catholics of having a “sin issue”. While many of them believe all of our sins, past, present, and future, were cleansed on the cross, Catholics believe (from their perspective) that we can be saved, then lose our salvation. They believe nothing can separate us from our salvation, whereas, we say that sin does separate us from God, even after we are washed clean.

As I have said in the other thread, this split between J and S (with forensic J coming before S) means that God lies to Himself then proceeds to make a truth out of the lie.

I can understand your train of thought, here, I am just not so sure it will bring much progress when talking to one who believes in forensic justification. The idea that they have become the righteousness of God in Christ because their faith was reckoned to them as righteousness is too ingrained.

I guess I am saying that, though this observation is valid, since they do not believe the way you do, it is not likely to be a very convincing tactic. It is like using the Catechism to prove a point when you are dealing with a “bible only christian”. It carries no weight.

After death. And point of death is IN time.

This point will be moot for a person who believes any remaining cleansing happens at the point of death.

And the twinkling of an eye in eternity is probably a billion years in earth time. So what?  You were saying that sanctification happens at the point of death.

Actually, I was saying that non-catholics who deny purgatory, but accept that nothing unclean can enter heaven believe this.
Huh! When did I shout?

I really struggle with your large font, trying to preserve all the codes when responding. It comes across as though you have to make a larger font to put your point across better. Bigger size = louder “voice”.

benedictus2:

You are getting into the nasty habit of throwing completely unfounded accusations at me. It seems like you don’t like yourself being questioned. First I was “intolerant” and “uncharitable” then I was supposed to be bashing people with bricks simply for simply being what they are and now I am shouting.

I am sure your posts are just coming across to me that way. Think nothing of it. I am role playing a Reformed Christian, and that is how it communicates.

What’s going on there?

Do you do this so that I will look bad and so that you will look like the epitome and champion of tolerance, charity, soft spokenness and ability to dialogue? There is absolutely no need to.

Stick to the topic. That is all that is required.

I am not here to be mushy mushy but to debate about the truth.

I took the “size” codes out of this last peice. For some reason your posts have a lot of extra codes and require cleaning up.

I have read possibly hundreds of your posts, and have never encountered them this way. It does cause one to wonder “what is going on there”? I appreciate you coming to this thread so that we can stick to the topic. I don’t expect anyone to be “mushy mushy”, but when I first started reading your posts on this subject, it did not appear that you were interested in debate, just to make disparagement about the other side.

Repeating the mantra “it required God to lie to Himself” will probably not make much progress with a very informed and entrenched Calvanist. I have met many on CAF that have been completely intractible.

 

[guanophore]

Why couldn’t you just have stuck to reason and to topic?

And what a nice kind thing to say:" * I am finding your posts on this topic very out of character for you"* Condescension at its finest.

For the record, it is very much my character if you read my other other posts.

Perhaps your goals on CAF are different than mine. I want to get the feedback because I want to become better at defending my faith. I need to know when something I write comes across as condescending, hostile, etc.

Perhaps I have just not noticed your “character” before?

 

[benedictus2]

YOu seemed to imply that understanding the heterodox position of Reformed Christianity was “relativism”. Relativism is not understanding a heterodox point of view, but accepting the heterodox position as equally valid.

Of the heterodox which one is ortho?

Yes, but one need not do so to understand an opposing point of view. It really helps, when having dialogue or discussion (something you don’t seem to want to do right now) to understand where the other person came up with their conclusions.

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?

We’ve gone past that. The question here is “which one is right?”.

All Reformed Christians believe their faith comes from the Scriptures.

Was that ever in question?

They are taught to interpret the verses through the lens of Calvanism, and don’t even realize that the writers meant something different. Catholics read the legal terminology through the lens of Catholicism, that is why we understand it differently.

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

We read it this way because we read through the lens of the faith that was handed down to us. Reformed Christians have been separated form the Sacred Tradition for 500+ years, so all they have left is their interpretation of Scripture, which has as many meanings as people have belly buttons.

And you tell me you are not being relativist.

 

[benedictus2]

Perhaps your goals on CAF are different than mine. I want to get the feedback because I want to become better at defending my faith. I need to know when something I write comes across as condescending, hostile, etc.

Perhaps I have just not noticed your “character” before?

When someone points my error I don’t go on a character attack. I just say mea culpa. When I say a post is stupid I show why it is so. When I say something is illogical, I show why it is so.

I never go into all that "intolerance’ . “charity” stuff because that just derails the thread.

If you want to come out smelling like roses by pointing out how others stunk, that’s up to you.

 

[benedictus2]

I am asking because reading your posts left me with the impression that you believed those who espouse forensic justificaiton believed otherwise.

But isn’t that exactly what I said - that those who believed in forensic justification means we are still dirty?

You also objected to the “snow covered dunghill” mentality (objectionable without doubt) but seemed to imply that people should no longer be considered “miserable sinners” once they are justified.

Isn’t it that once we are baptized, if we die we go straight to heaven because we have been completely washed clean? No stain of sin whatsoever?

Yes, but Catholicism teaches that concupiscence remains after grace is infused, and that the “sin nature” is not washed away.

But we are clean. Unlike the forensic understanding where we remain dirty.

This is why many Reformed Christians accuse Catholics of having a “sin issue”. While many of them believe all of our sins, past, present, and future, were cleansed on the cross, Catholics believe (from their perspective) that we can be saved, then lose our salvation. They believe nothing can separate us from our salvation, whereas, we say that sin does separate us from God, even after we are washed clean.

You really think that is Catholic teaching?

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.

I can understand your train of thought, here, I am just not so sure it will bring much progress when talking to one who believes in forensic justification. The idea that they have become the righteousness of God in Christ because their faith was reckoned to them as righteousness is too ingrained.

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

I guess I am saying that, though this observation is valid, since they do not believe the way you do, it is not likely to be a very convincing tactic. It is like using the Catechism to prove a point when you are dealing with a “bible only christian”. It carries no weight.

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.

This point will be moot for a person who believes any remaining cleansing happens at the point of death.

Again, so what?

Actually, I was saying that non-catholics who deny purgatory, but accept that nothing unclean can enter heaven believe this.

That has already been noted waaay before.

I really struggle with your large font, trying to preserve all the codes when responding. It comes across as though you have to make a larger font to put your point across better. Bigger size = louder “voice”.

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

I took the “size” codes out of this last peice. For some reason your posts have a lot of extra codes and require cleaning up.

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

I have read possibly hundreds of your posts, and have never encountered them this way. It does cause one to wonder “what is going on there”?

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.

I appreciate you coming to this thread so that we can stick to the topic. I don’t expect anyone to be “mushy mushy”, but when I first started reading your posts on this subject, it did not appear that you were interested in debate, just to make disparagement about the other side.

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.

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.

Repeating the mantra “it required God to lie to Himself” will probably not make much progress with a very informed and entrenched Calvanist. I have met many on CAF that have been completely intractible.

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