Forensic Justification - what's your view about it?

[Julia_Mae]

Sorry for the lack of clarification. When I mean by a forensic justification, I am using it in the classical reformation theological definition. Please don’t be offended by this link. …

No, I see I was not clear. My bad.

I asked you to explain it. You, yourself, who are posting here. What is your understanding? We are talking to you and would like a smooth a dialogue as possible.

What do you think the difference is to you between “justification”" and the same word with forensic added on as an adjective? In college we were told if we couldn’t explain our thesis to a 12 year old, we didn’t understand it ourselves. I think speaking to me as if I were 12 is an excellent idea!

Please explain and define your term.

 

[jmcrae]

Okay, maybe that is too much to open a discussion. Let’s start here and see what happens:

religioustolerance.org/chr_just.htm

But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, - Romans 4:5

Right - our salvation is by the grace of God, and not because of anything we do. A newly baptized baby who somehow dies in his sleep will go straight to the same Heaven as St. Ignatius of Antioch, who sat on the knee of Jesus as a baby, lived his whole life as a Christian, and died in the jaws of the lions for Him.

But does that mean that St. Ignatius of Antioch would have gone to Heaven if he had done nothing at all, or if he had taken up a life of sin, instead of living as a Christian after meeting Christ in his infancy? If so, then why did any of them die as martyrs?

Wouldn’t it have made way more sense for them to have just made their one-time declaration of faith in the caves, and then gone about their business as if nothing had happened? Since if they were forensically justified, there would be no reason for them to give up their sins or their pagan ways, and it would have been way safer for everyone just to blend in.

But they didn’t. And why not?

it is because they read the entire letter that St. Paul had sent to them, and not just one or two lines here and there. They followed every instruction; not just the ones that appealed to their senses.

That’s why we continue to have the same Sacraments today, and the same call to holiness today, as what they had back then in the catacombs.

 

[Christian_Unity]

Right - our salvation is by the grace of God, and not because of anything we do. A newly baptized baby who somehow dies in his sleep will go straight to the same Heaven as St. Ignatius of Antioch, who sat on the knee of Jesus as a baby, lived his whole life as a Christian, and died in the jaws of the lions for Him.

But does that mean that St. Ignatius of Antioch would have gone to Heaven if he had done nothing at all, or if he had taken up a life of sin, instead of living as a Christian after meeting Christ in his infancy? If so, then why did any of them die as martyrs?

Wouldn’t it have made way more sense for them to have just made their one-time declaration of faith in the caves, and then gone about their business as if nothing had happened? Since if they were forensically justified, there would be no reason for them to give up their sins or their pagan ways, and it would have been way safer for everyone just to blend in.

But they didn’t. And why not?

it is because they read the entire letter that St. Paul had sent to them, and not just one or two lines here and there. They followed every instruction; not just the ones that appealed to their senses.

That’s why we continue to have the same Sacraments today, and the same call to holiness today, as what they had back then in the catacombs.

It seems that you believe that you merit salvation through good works done in Christ, correct?

 

[Christian_Unity]

No, I see I was not clear. My bad.

I asked you to explain it. You, yourself, who are posting here. What is your understanding? We are talking to you and would like a smooth a dialogue as possible.

What do you think the difference is to you between “justification”" and the same word with forensic added on as an adjective? In college we were told if we couldn’t explain our thesis to a 12 year old, we didn’t understand it ourselves. I think speaking to me as if I were 12 is an excellent idea!

Please explain and define your term.

A forensic justification just means that we are declared righteous by God the Father and are forgiven for past, present, and future sins based on the merit of Christ alone. The work of Christ is sufficient for the believer as our sole means of justification. In Romans 3, God credits the perfect righteousness of Christ to our account through the instrument of faith. It means we are legally declared not guilty since we are clothed in the righteousness of Christ upon receiving the gospel and born from above. So positionally, we are as righteous as can be because we have been credited the Christ’s perfect righteousness to our account at conversion. Practically at conversion, we are still dirty rotten sinners being made into the image of Christ through the transforming work of the Spirit of God throughout our earthly life. I hope that helps.

 

[JRKH]

Okay, maybe that is too much to open a discussion. Let’s start here and see what happens:

religioustolerance.org/chr_just.htm

But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, - Romans 4:5

For every verse or passage that is tossed out trying to separate faith from works, the Catholic can toss out one that speaks to the necessity of works.
For every verse or passage tossed out trying to prove OSAS the catholic can respond with a verse demonstrating the opposite.

As you said earlier some Protestants try to use this as a “line in the sand to prevent unity” and I think that is quite correct.
True understanding can only come from integrating the two positions through a full understanding of ALL Scripture.

As I was thinking about this last night, it occurred to me how the pendulum of history can swing wildly. The idea of Forensic Justification came about in part because of the “indulgence scandal” that was occurring at the time.
But over time, and in some Christian groups, the pendulum has swung too far the other direction…
At the time of Luther the concern was that too much emphasis was placed on works…Today the concern is that not enough emphasis is placed on works. In this I speak specifically to the OSAS view.
This view is just as dangerous as a view that over emphasizes works - indeed it may be even more dangerous. but perhaps that is a subject for a different thread…

As I stated earlier, the idea of imputed righteousness (which is what I understand forensic justification to be) has some validity, but one cannot simply stop there.

Peace
James

 

[MarcoPolo]

But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, - Romans 4:5

Just as in the Colossians passage in your first verse, the “work” here referred to is the Old Testament law, the legal ordinances that could not save. We know this because Paul follows up Romans 4:5 with the example of circumcision––which was a legal practice of the OT. He insists that Abraham’s righteousness did not come from this kind of work. In verse 13, he says the promise to Abraham, “did not come through the law.” The works of the law are distinct from the works of faith done in grace. For instance, if you go back 2 chapters, you read this:*Romans 2:6-7 For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.*Patience and well-doing are works done in grace. It is these which relate to eternal life. And these are not works of the OT ordinance laws. The simple thing to remember in Romans, is when Paul speaks of works ordered toward salvation, he is referring to the works done in grace. When Paul speaks of works that do not save, he is referring to works of the OT legal law.

And again, I do not think these Romans verses are related to forensic justification.

 

[Julia_Mae]

A forensic justification just means that we are declared righteous by God the Father and are forgiven for past, present, and future sins based on the merit of Christ alone. The work of Christ is sufficient for the believer as our sole means of justification. In Romans 3, God credits the perfect righteousness of Christ to our account through the instrument of faith. It means we are legally declared not guilty since we are clothed in the righteousness of Christ upon receiving the gospel and born from above. So positionally, we are as righteous as can be because we have been credited the Christ’s perfect righteousness to our account at conversion. Practically at conversion, we are still dirty rotten sinners being made into the image of Christ through the transforming work of the Spirit of God throughout our earthly life. I hope that helps.

Thanks! So, about this part:

A forensic justification just means that we are declared righteous by God the Father and are forgiven for past, present, and future sins based on the merit of Christ alone.

Does this apply to everyone in the world? And, why did Jesus say we had things we had to do in order to see the Kingdom of God, like feed the hungry and so forth? And, why did Paul also say we had to do works of mercy?

Also, when does this happen and if we start torturing little children to death with glee and no regret, after this happens, then we still go to Heaven?

Thanks.

 

[guanophore]

It seems that you believe that you merit salvation through good works done in Christ, correct?

Yes, but not in the way you are thinking. You see, for Catholics, the term “merit” does not mean that we think there is anything of ourselves (fallen human nature apart from God) that can please Him. For without faith, it is impossible. You may be thinking of the term “merit” along the modern lines of “deserve” salvation, whereas Catholics use this term to reflect the term “reward” in the Scriptures.

Rom 4:3-5
4 Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. 5 But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness.

We do not “merit” salvation because of our human works, because they are “due” to us as wages.

We understand the term “merit” as actually being made worthy in Christ (as opposed to simply declared worthy). The Apostles taught that baptism is regenerative and salvific. In baptism we are washed, sanctified, ,and justified. Calvinists would say this regeneration happens when the human spirit is quickened by hearing the word of God preached. Either way, both sides agree that the moment the human soul is regenerated, the Holy Spirit washes us and we are changed. Calvanists say we are only “positionally” changed. The Apostles taught that it is an actual change.

Col 3:23-4:1
23 Whatever your task, put yourselves into it, as done for the Lord and not for your masters, 24 since you know that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you serve the Lord Christ. 25 For the wrongdoer will be paid back for whatever wrong has been done, and there is no partiality.

The inheritance that we receive is being united at the end of this life to the inheritance that is kept imperishable in heaven for us. Those who fail to run the race to the end will not be united to that inheritance.

The Aposltes taught that we have an obligation to enter into the ergos hagios (good works) for which God has saved us. The grace that justifies us through faith is not separated from that same grace that is at work within us to will and to do His good pleasure.

 

[guanophore]

A forensic justification just means that we are declared righteous by God the Father and are forgiven for past, present, and future sins based on the merit of Christ alone. The work of Christ is sufficient for the believer as our sole means of justification. In Romans 3, God credits the perfect righteousness of Christ to our account through the instrument of faith. It means we are legally declared not guilty since we are clothed in the righteousness of Christ upon receiving the gospel and born from above. So positionally, we are as righteous as can be because we have been credited the Christ’s perfect righteousness to our account at conversion. Practically at conversion, we are still dirty rotten sinners being made into the image of Christ through the transforming work of the Spirit of God throughout our earthly life. I hope that helps.

Yes, this helps immensely.

As I stated earlier, the idea of imputed righteousness (which is what I understand forensic justification to be) has some validity, but one cannot simply stop there.

Peace
James

This is absolutely true, and I like your concept of the pendulum too. If there were no validity to the legal and accounting terms used, they would not be in the Scripture! What Calvin has done is sift through the text of the NT, finding support for his systematic theology, while ignoring passages that contradict his view.

And again, I do not think these Romans verses are related to forensic justification.

I think that Paul is explaining how both Jew and Gentile are justified by grace, through faith. The reason it is conceptualized as “forensic” is because he dwells heavily on “righteousness”, without which no one can be saved. The Apostles taught this much be an actual righteousness, whereas the Calvanists consider it only “positionally” (that we are not, in fact, righteous).

Does this apply to everyone in the world?

No, Calvanists (and those who have been infected by systematic theology ) believe that Christ only died for the Elect. This concept is known as “limited atonement” and is part of the Calvinistic TULIP. You can read a good Catholic response to TULIP here.

And, why did Jesus say we had things we had to do in order to see the Kingdom of God, like feed the hungry and so forth? And, why did Paul also say we had to do works of mercy?

Those who espouse this conception of forensic justification believe that God sanctifies all that He justifies, and that good works are part of the process of being made holy. They also believe that if a person is a “true believer” he will want to do good works, becuase he has a new nature created in grace that desires to do what God wants.

Also, when does this happen

It is an interesting perspective about regeneration. God predestines those He wants to save, then when they hear the Gospel preached, they are regenerated by the Holy Spirit, at which time they are able to repent and express faith in God (which does include baptism but it is not required).

and if we start torturing little children to death with glee and no regret, after this happens, then we still go to Heaven?

Thanks.

No, a person who does such a thing is not a true believer, because a true believer would never do such a thing. They would be horrified by such an act because it is not consistent with the character of Christ, whose mind they now have. This kind of activity is a sign that the person was never saved in the first place (they were kidding themselves and everyone else too).

 

[JRKH]

A forensic justification just means that we are declared righteous by God the Father and are forgiven for past, present, and future sins based on the merit of Christ alone. The work of Christ is sufficient for the believer as our sole means of justification. In Romans 3, God credits the perfect righteousness of Christ to our account through the instrument of faith. It means we are legally declared not guilty since we are clothed in the righteousness of Christ upon receiving the gospel and born from above. So positionally, we are as righteous as can be because we have been credited the Christ’s perfect righteousness to our account at conversion. Practically at conversion, we are still dirty rotten sinners being made into the image of Christ through the transforming work of the Spirit of God throughout our earthly life. I hope that helps.

The place in this where we can have problems is “future sins” being forgiven. While the most pure understanding of Forensic Justification surely recognizes the need for reform of ones life and the studious avoidance of future sin, it is often applied or understood by the unlearned in such a way as to impede true repentance. I speak in this to the OSAS concept.

That said I agree with the idea that, as you say above, “positionally, we are as righteous as can be because we have been credited the Christ’s perfect righteousness to our account at conversion”, but this declaration is not a cart-blanche to continue to be, again to use your own words, “dirty rotten sinners”.

Jesus calls us to perfection in Mt 5:48…

Even after our conversion there is much for us to do…and some (myself included) would call what we have to do…work.

Peace
James

 

[guanophore]

The place in this where we can have problems is “future sins” being forgiven. While the most pure understanding of Forensic Justification surely recognizes the need for reform of ones life and the studious avoidance of future sin, it is often applied or understood by the unlearned in such a way as to impede true repentance. I speak in this to the OSAS concept.

That said I agree with the idea that, as you say above, “positionally, we are as righteous as can be because we have been credited the Christ’s perfect righteousness to our account at conversion”, but this declaration is not a cart-blanche to continue to be, again to use your own words, “dirty rotten sinners”.

Jesus calls us to perfection in Mt 5:48…

Even after our conversion there is much for us to do…and some (myself included) would call what we have to do…work.

Peace
James

This is very well said James, as are your previous posts on this topic. Catholics have received the Apostolic instruction:

Phil 2:12-13

Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

There is a world of difference between working “out” and working “on”. The believer who has a solid understanding that he is infused with grace and that his efforts are meant to cooperate with the grace that has been infused at baptism has a very different experience than the believer who thinks “God did His part, now I have to do my part”. It is no wonder the monergists think that Catholics believe we are saved by own own (fleshly) human works!

 

[Christian_Unity]

Thanks! So, about this part:

Does this apply to everyone in the world? And, why did Jesus say we had things we had to do in order to see the Kingdom of God, like feed the hungry and so forth? And, why did Paul also say we had to do works of mercy?

Also, when does this happen and if we start torturing little children to death with glee and no regret, after this happens, then we still go to Heaven?

Thanks.

A forensic justification applies to those who believe in the gospel in an effectual way. Those who are truly born from above by the Spirit of God, will produce good works done in Christ to the glory of God. I think Luther said something like… we are justified by faith alone, but it is never alone from a life of good works to the glory of God (paraphrase loosely ). We all believe that a life of good works, a progressive love of God and fellow man is evidence of someone who is in Christ. However, we are divided on the works that we do in Christ is meritorious for justification. A forensic justification is being declared righteous or justified on the basis of works of Christ alone and not our own good works done in Christ. The original Protestant Reformers did not believe in easy belivism or OSAS modern day theology, nor do I believe that either.

 

[guanophore]

 A forensic justification applies to those who believe in the gospel in an effectual way.

It seems like you are saying that people who believe they are justified are then justified, because they accept that the Gospel message applies to them. Is that accurate?Those who do not accept the Gospel message are not thereby justififed in hearing it’s message.

Those who are truly born from above by the Spirit of God, will produce good works done in Christ to the glory of God.

This is a premise forwarded by Calvin that is simply not always the case. The Apostles taught that we are justified in baptism, and yet not all those who are validly baptized can or do produce good works. Some of them die before having an opportunity to do any works, good or bad. Some are developmentally or physically incapable of doing any works, such as a quadraplegic might be limited in “doing” or a person in a coma.

It is also true that those who are born again produce works of the flesh, which do not glorify God, and yet, they are not any less born again.

That being said, I think that Catholics will agree that the Spirit is at work in us to will and to do His good pleasure. It is incumbent upon us to cling to the Vine, and thereby , produce good fruit. Those who do not bear fruit are cut down and thrown into the fire. The major difference might be that Catholics have received the Apostolic Teaching that persons who have been regenerated and connected to the Vine can still be cut off, whereas, Calvin denied this.

 I think Luther said something like... we are justified by faith alone, but it is never alone from a life of good works to the glory of God (paraphrase loosely :) ). We all believe that a life of good works, a progressive love of God and fellow man is evidence of someone who is in Christ.

Yes. Luther retained the Apostolic Teaching that saving faith is always accompanied by good works to the glory of God.

  However, we are divided on the works that we do in Christ is meritorious for justification.

Catholics and Lutherans have a great deal in common on this point, having accepted what the Apostles believed and taught on the subject.

I think this is more related to the understanding of justification. Calvin innovated some very new concepts of it that would be foreign to the Apostles.
The Apostles did not teach that we are justified “once for all”, but that being in right relationship with God is an ongoing process, and that one can be inside, and outside, that state of grace. There are certain aspects of justification that occur once for all and are permanent, but there are some that pertain to our current process of sanctification, and some that will not occur until the end of this life.

Calvin and subsequent refromers like to separate justification, sanctification and glorification in a way the Apostles don’t. At the same time, we are all in agreement that we cannot work our way into God’s good graces, or to heaven, that we gain heaven by grace, through faith.

A forensic justification is being declared righteous or justified on the basis of works of Christ alone and not our own good works done in Christ. The original Protestant Reformers did not believe in easy belivism or OSAS modern day theology, nor do I believe that either.

Well, this is how modern Calvanitstically influenced evangelicals conceptualize it. But the Apostles taught (because Jesus did) that none of these things are “alone”. Yes, we are both declared righteous and MADE righteous by the grace of God, but we access this grace through faith, ,which in itself is a WORK. We must respond to God’s grace in Christ and choose to be chosen. This is a major difference between Refromed theology and the Apostolic faith. Reformed Theology is monogergistic (God alone), where Apostolic theology is synergistic (grace meets faith).

I am glad to hear that you have not falled for the modern day easy believism of cheap grace.

All the Reformers retained the Apostolic truth that we must bear fruits that befit repentance.

 

[Christian_Unity]

It seems like you are saying that people who believe they are justified are then justified, because they accept that the Gospel message applies to them. Is that accurate?Those who do not accept the Gospel message are not thereby justififed in hearing it’s message.

I believe the idea of “accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior” started with Charles Finney in the 2nd Great Awakening and is not a blblical view. God commands everyone everywhere to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. So, the gospel message is more than a choice of acceptance; it is a clear command of God made to all human beings. Here are tough verses regarding obeying the gospel:

The Judgment at Christ’s Coming

This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering— since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from** the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling and may fulfill every resolve for good and every work of faith by his power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ. - 2 Thes 1**

 

[Christian_Unity]

Well, this is how modern Calvanitstically influenced evangelicals conceptualize it. But the Apostles taught (because Jesus did) that none of these things are “alone”. Yes, we are both declared righteous and MADE righteous by the grace of God, but we access this grace through faith, ,which in itself is a WORK. We must respond to God’s grace in Christ and choose to be chosen. This is a major difference between Refromed theology and the Apostolic faith. Reformed Theology is monogergistic (God alone), where Apostolic theology is synergistic (grace meets faith).

I am glad to hear that you have not falled for the modern day easy believism of cheap grace.

All the Reformers retained the Apostolic truth that we must bear fruits that befit repentance.

I believe Reformed Theology teaches that justification is monergistic, yet sanctification is synergistic. Would it be accurate to say that Catholic Theology is similar to Arminian Protestant theology in regards to a synergistic conversion? In my view, I see that the Catholic view to be one of semi-Pelagius; somewhere between the view of Augustine and Pelagius on the issues of salvation and conversion. These are tough issues to discuss, but both Ariminian Protestantism and the Catholic Faith puts great weight on man’s free will and ability to believe in Christ.

 

[jmcrae]

It seems that you believe that you merit salvation through good works done in Christ, correct?

One can certainly “merit” Hell simply by neglecting to do one’s Christian duty, and by doing “works” of sin. In Matthew 7:21, Jesus speaks plainly:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Salvation comes from Christ, but if it is neglected - if we don’t participate in the Sacraments and in the life of the Church, and if we are not kind to others, and if we commit sin, then we can certainly lose it.

In Hebrews 6:4-6 we are warned:

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

That is, everyone who has accepted Jesus as his Saviour.

6 If they shall fall away,

that is, if they presume upon their salvation, and return again to commit some kind of sin -

to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

They have lost their salvation by committing sin after giving their lives to Jesus - they must renew their repentance (in Catholic parlance, they have to go to Confession - I suppose Evangelicals would say that they were never saved to begin with, and they still have to get saved for the first time) and start all over again, and this time, it’s worse, because they knew better the second time around - they weren’t doing things in ignorance of the teachings of Christ.

 

[guanophore]

I believe the idea of "accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior" started with Charles Finney in the 2nd Great Awakening and is not a blblical view.

You are right, of course.

     God commands everyone everywhere to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. So, the gospel message is more than a choice of acceptance; it is a clear command of God made to all human beings. Here are tough verses regarding obeying the gospel:

This is the Catholic understanding also. But where we differ I think would be that Catholics believe that people have a choice to accept or reject the message, whereas, Reformed Chrisitans seem to believe that God has predestined those who will receive, and people only choose to believe it if they are among those predestined elect.

The Judgment at Christ’s Coming

This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering— since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from** the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling and may fulfill every resolve for good and every work of faith by his power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ. - 2 Thes 1**

When Catholics read “that you may be considered worthy” we understand it to mean that we are actualy made worthy by Christ.

The reason that the unbelievers will marvel at Him in the believers is because His grace will be made perfect in us, and His glory will shine in us. Not that we are filthy sinners covered with grace, but really and trully conformed to His image.

As the Apostle says, being made worthy of His calling involves fulfilling every good work and work of faith by his power. This is where we see the relationship that it is grace, working through love.

I believe Reformed Theology teaches that justification is monergistic, yet sanctification is synergistic. Would it be accurate to say that Catholic Theology is similar to Arminian Protestant theology in regards to a synergistic conversion? In my view, I see that the Catholic view to be one of semi-Pelagius; somewhere between the view of Augustine and Pelagius on the issues of salvation and conversion. These are tough issues to discuss, but both Ariminian Protestantism and the Catholic Faith puts great weight on man’s free will and ability to believe in Christ.

Yes, Arminius retained the Apostolic Teaching on justification, in that he accepted that we can fall from the faith, and fail through disobedience to be united with our heavenly inheritance.

I can understand why Reformed Christians see the Catholic view as semi-Pelagian. I think that comes out of the errant doctrine of total depravity. It seems to be an incomplete understanding of what his grace working through faith really means. I will give you a scriptural example.

Heb 4:2-3
2 For good news came to us just as to them; but the message which they heard did not benefit them, because it did not meet with faith in the hearers.

Gal 3:1-3
2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?

There is a certain attitude with which one must hear the Word in order to be able to receive it. This attitude is under the influence of the listener. It is a “work” inspired by the HS through no merit of our own, but one in which we must participate by choice.

John 6:28-30
“What must we do to perform the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

All of the works of God flow out of this initial work, in which the individual chooses to respond to the call.

 

[Julia_Mae]

No, Calvanists …

I really have no interest in the Calvinist view, per se, with which I am familiar, I was interested in what the OP believes.

 

[Julia_Mae]

A forensic justification applies to those who believe in the gospel in an effectual way. Those who are truly born from above by the Spirit of God, will produce good works done in Christ to the glory of God.

So you agree with the Church.

We all believe that a life of good works, a progressive love of God and fellow man is evidence of someone who is in Christ. However, we are divided on the works that we do in Christ is meritorious for justification.

I guess my response is: who cares? I mean, seriously, we are Christians. Jesus told us to do certain things and refrain from doing certain things. None of those things are difficult to understand. So, really, what possible benefit could this discussion have for anyone?

 

[guanophore]

I really have no interest in the Calvinist view, per se, with which I am familiar, I was interested in what the OP believes.

Is there another source for this doctrine?

So you agree with the Church.

I guess my response is: who cares? I mean, seriously, we are Christians. Jesus told us to do certain things and refrain from doing certain things. None of those things are difficult to understand. So, really, what possible benefit could this discussion have for anyone?

I think the OP clarified this above. She considers Catholicism to be semi-pelagian, and as such, it is not a religion that can lead to salvation.