Forensic Justification - what's your view about it?

[Christian_Unity]

Back to the OP; I believe God saves us through the proclamation of Christ and Him crucified for sinners for peace and reconciliation with Him through preaching of the gospel. When we receive this truth of the good news, I believe God credits or imputes the righteousness of Christ to our account and are saved and united to Christ by faith, and are eternally adopted into the family of God. I believe Catholic siblings are saved in the same way, when they believe in the good news of God. We may disagree of the purpose of the sacrament of baptism, yet that does not change the truth of what God does and how He does it… for the purpose His glory and His good pleasure. Faith does not save us, rather faith is the instrument God uses to flow the saving grace to us.

And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. - 1 Corinthians 2:1-2

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.” – Rom 1

In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. - Ephesians 1:11-14

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; - James 1

 

[Christian_Unity]

I haven’t gotten the idea that De Matia doesn’t like me.

Jon

I think De Maia needs to learn how to disagree agreeably. Hey, for me… I embrace professing Christians as siblings from the various churches and denominations within the context of orthodoxy, defined within the historic ecumenical creeds (Nicene and Apostles). I believe our differences are speculative based on presuppositions that will be resolved on the other side of glory.

 

[Christian_Unity]

Just for clarification, and not to interdict into your conversation with Guan, it needs to be clear that at least Lutherans, and I’m sure Anglicans, believe in Baptismal regeneration, and that God works His grace in those who are Baptized, including infants.

Carry on,
Jon

I was aware of that tension with Lutherans, but did not realize Anglicans believed in baptismal regeneration. Is this belief for infant baptismal regeneration only, or do Lutherans and Anglicans believe in baptismal regeneration for adult converts too? It seems Luther’s belief of justification by faith alone does not fit together with adult baptismal regeneration.

 

[JonNC]

I think De Maia needs to learn how to disagree agreeably. .

Perhaps, but that doesn’t necessarily translate into De Maria doesn’t like protestants. And its curious that his most strident exchanges have been with fellow Catholic Guan.

Hey, for me… I embrace professing Christians as siblings from the various churches and denominations within the context of orthodoxy, defined within the historic ecumenical creeds (Nicene and Apostles). I believe our differences are speculative based on presuppositions that will be resolved on the other side of glory

I don’t have any problem with this view, even though I think it can swerve into a relativism that I don’t accept.
I might add that the creed says, “I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sin.” I interpreted your previous posts as rejecting this about Baptism, though I may have misunderstood.

Jon

 

[Christian_Unity]

Perhaps, but that doesn’t necessarily translate into De Maria doesn’t like protestants. And its curious that his most strident exchanges have been with fellow Catholic Guan.

I don’t have any problem with this view, even though I think it can swerve into a relativism that I don’t accept.
I might add that the creed says, “I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sin.” I interpreted your previous posts as rejecting this about Baptism, though I may have misunderstood.

Jon

I think the normative way that God saves sinners is through the proclamation of the gospel. Can God save sinners through other means such as infant baptism regeneration? I believe He can, but I believe infants from believing households are already holy, sanctified, and clean according to Scripture (1 Cor 7). Therefore, I do not believe baptism is necessary for infants who die in infancy based on God saving infants who die through the person and work of Christ apart from personal faith or baptism. I am curious what Lutherans and Anglicans believe about adults and baptismal regeneration. Does anybody know official Lutheran and Anglican doctrine on that issue of adult baptismal regeneration? I believe the one baptism in the creed and Ephesians 4 is the baptism done by the Spirit of God and not the one done by the hands of men.

 

[De_Maria]

Just for clarification, and not to interdict into your conversation with Guan, it needs to be clear that at least Lutherans, and I’m sure Anglicans, believe in Baptismal regeneration, and that God works His grace in those who are Baptized, including infants.

I understand. In those case the intent is the same. However, I’m pretty certain that even in those cases, inquiries are made. Nothing is taken for granted, since even amongst Lutherans, there are many who do not believe in Baptism as the Catholic Church teaches.

Carry on,
Jon

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Granted, it is not the fullness of faith.

Who said it had to be the fullness of faith? I said that denying that Christ can work through Baptism is no kind of faith. It is a rejection of faith.

But the Church has determined that submitting to it as an “ordinance” because Christ commanded it is sufficient for a beginning.

Where? Show me the infallible Church pronouncement which says that those who have submitted to Baptism as an ordinance are validly baptized regardless of the intent of the minister or the faith of the subject.

Protestants to engage in “believers baptism” do so because they have come to faith in Christ, and they understand and accept that He has commanded it.

Prove your case. I have shown that it is taken on a case by case basis. I have shown that the declaration that certain Protestant Baptisms are valid is a mere guideline.

Now, show me that the Protestants’ Baptisms are accepted without question by the Catholic Church.

It is a good question, and one which you might wish to direct to the Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith.

Not at all, De Maria. I have decided, whether I understand or agree with it or not, that the Magesterium has ruled on the matter, and therefore it is incumbent upon me to accept their decision.

Provide the ruling. Let us see what it actually says.

Yes, I am aware of the Teaching of the Church. And I am aware that the Church accepts Protestant Trinitarian baptisms, including that vast majority done by those who do not believe that baptism is regenerative. Your assessment that the Magesterium is non compliant with your standards is an issue you will have to take up with them.

Show me the Teaching of the Church which you claim dispenses with “intent”.

I beg your pardon De Maria. Magesterium has decided that the faith expressed by Protestants in believers baptism is sufficient, and accepts those baptisms. The Church does not rebaptize them because the Church believes and teaches that there is only One Baptism.

Well there you have it! Protestants come to believe in Jesus because they hear the Word preached, and they become baptized because the Lord commands it.

You are twisting the word of the Catechism to justify your claim.

Show me the Catholic Teaching which dispenses with “intent” with regards to certain Protestants.

Protestants become baptized because they have faith in Jesus.

It is not faith to deny Christ’s vivifying power in Baptism. Show me the Catholic Teaching which dispenses with intent for certain groups of Protestants.

Yes, of course. And the Magesterium has decided that the faith of Protestants that brings them to baptism is sufficient.

Show me the Church document which dispenses with intent.

This is your private interpretation of the Church teaching and practice, De Maria. I have just pointed out that your private assessment appears to contradict the ruling of the Magesterium in the matter.

I have shown you how one Diocese interprets the same issue. I have shown you how one Diocese takes each conversion to the Church on a case by case basis.

Now, you show me the Church which interprets the instruction of the Church with dispensing with “intent of the Church”. Then I’ll have to believe you. Otherwise, you are twisting the Catholic Teaching to justify yourself.

I have also suggested that using apologetic energy toward what the scriptures say about baptism might be a better course, rather than placing yourself in public disagreement with the Magesterium.

It is you who are contradicting the Spirit of the Catholic Teaching. Show me the Catholic Teaching which dispenses with intent with regards to any group. Show me.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[guanophore]

Just for clarification, and not to interdict into your conversation with Guan, it needs to be clear that at least Lutherans, and I’m sure Anglicans, believe in Baptismal regeneration, and that God works His grace in those who are Baptized, including infants.

Carry on,
Jon

By all means, interperse yourself! One of the main reasons I invited De Maria to this thread is because you are here, and I knew you would make this point. Thank you for clarifying your beliefs on Sola Scriptura as well. I realize it was a little off topic but I think it is important to clarify that not all Protestants believe the same way on these issues.

 

[De_Maria]

Then would it not be prudent to leave the matter to those appointed by Christ to make it, rather than taking on the roloe of inquisitor yourself?

I am not taking on the role of inquisitor. You are again trying to poison the well by painting me as some unreasonable person whose messages should be disregarded.

However, you have claimed that the Magisterium has declared “believer’s baptism” an exception to the rule about intent. Show me the Doctrine. Prove your claim.

Believers baptism is something done in faith for the purpose of obeying Christ. Their engagement in it is a sign of their desire to obey His commandments, in spite of a lack of undersanding and knowledge about the fullness of the faith. In this sense, they stand in the tradition of Apollos. I urge you to consider taking the same approach as was taken toward him.

I have asked you to provide the Catholic Teaching which dispenses with intent.

On the contrary, it is a matter for the ordained to determine, not that of lay apologists. You seem to have set yourself up as if you were a magesterial appointed inquisitor, making judgements that the baptisms are “not valid”.

Again, you’re trying to poison the well. If I am appointing myself as an inquisitor because I explain the truth, what are you since you are ignoring the truth and teaching your errors.

Show me the teaching which you claim exists which dispenses with “intent”.

Not so, De Maria. In fact, the reason I invited you to this thread was so that you could address the scriptures on the regenerative nature of baptism. That is one reason I asked you to answer post # 176.

I didn’t come here because of your invitation. I came because the thread was not begun by you nor abide.

No, although maybe it is what you have been trying to say. What is coming across is your mantra that “the baptisms are not valid”.

That is what you read into my statements. But you have proven over and over that you are not very careful with your language nor do you understand what you are reading.

This is not up to us to determine.

You know what happens when people like you pass on half truths? I’ve seen it before. The convert goes to Church, he is told he must be baptized and he feels betrayed because someone told like you told him that his Baptism was valid. So, from the beginning, he begins to see “ineptitude” in the Church and begins to question whether he should be entering a Church which doesn’t keep its word.

But the Church keeps its word. But people like you pass on half truths and paint everything rosy and then walk off patting yourself on the back for doing a superlative job.

What we can do is discuss what the Scriptures say about baptism, and why Protestants reject those Scriptures.

I do that anyway. Again, you have been proven wrong and you sidestep the issue as though you were correct all along.

I’ll give you a hint. In order to better understand what the Church teaches, learn how the Church puts into practice its Teachings. In this case, a study of RCIA might help you immensely.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[guanophore]

Who said it had to be the fullness of faith?  I said that denying that Christ can work through Baptism is no kind of faith.  It is a rejection of faith.

I can’t argue with that. However, to take the additional step of declaring their baptism “not valid” as you have consistently done seems to be beyond the boundaries of the lay apologist.

 Show me the infallible Church pronouncement which says that those who have submitted to Baptism as an ordinance are validly baptized regardless of the intent of the minister or the faith of the subject.

The determination is up to the Bishop, and by extension the parish priest who is receiving the individual into full communion. The Catechism clearly states that baptized Protestants have a right to be called Christian, and should be regarded as our siblings. I am sorry you don’t like it, but the Catechism is a “sure norm” for the faith.

Prove your case. I have shown that it is taken on a case by case basis. I have shown that the declaration that certain Protestant Baptisms are valid is a mere guideline.

It is not for lay apologists to decide whether another persons baptism is valid, or not.

Now, show me that the Protestants’ Baptisms are accepted without question by the Catholic Church.

The inquiry lies with the authorities of the Church. By declaring them “not valid” without proper inquiry, you are usurping the authority that belongs to the consecrated.

Show me the Teaching of the Church which you claim dispenses with “intent”.

It is not the place of the lay apologist to determine intent. If the pastor receiving the convert accepts the baptism, then it is accepted, whatever the intent at the time it was received. This is a matter of course if there is a certificate of baptism, which I think is normative with Lutherans and Anglicans.

You are twisting the word of the Catechism to justify your claim.

De Maria, I do not claim to have the authority of inquisition that I may spout out “their baptisms are not valid because…” I think you might have me confused with someone else.

It is not faith to deny Christ’s vivifying power in Baptism.

Certainly it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the fullness of our faith. That is why I say such persons stand in the tradition of Apollos.

 I have shown you how one Diocese interprets the same issue.  I have shown you how one Diocese takes each conversion to the Church on a case by case basis.

Perhaps you will be willing to allow the bishops of their relative dioceses conduct the inquiry, rather than pronoucing judgement in advance?

 Otherwise, you are twisting the Catholic Teaching to justify yourself.

Well, since I was justified and sanctified as an infant in the Catholic Church, your pronouncement about the invalidity of Protestant baptism does not really affect me, do you think?

It is you who are contradicting the Spirit of the Catholic Teaching. Show me the Catholic Teaching which dispenses with intent with regards to any group. Show me.

As soon as I get some evidence that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome has appointed you chief inquisitor on this matter.

Or if I have been addressing you improperly, please forgive me. Have you become Father De Maria? Or perhaps you have been elevated to the Bishipric and I missed the announcement? If so, Your Eminence, then I will certaily defer to your pronouncement of Protestant baptisms as “not valid”.

 

[KathleenGee]

The way Christ saves us is through obedience to His Word which is not reduced to text, but to the Living Christ among us in faith and in sacraments.

His saving power is present to us when we go to Mass. At Mass we gathering together in communion and in unity, all present to the same reality that is happening all over the world, same readings, same emphasis.

We leave this world to literally enter into eternal time to be directly in God’s presence Himself. This is a very, very different concept than your regular Sunday services revolving around the text Word of God, albeit both operate with the Holy Spirit through baptism.

You can believe in all of the major same points, but we do not see you with us at Mass and Christ does not witness you with us worshipping Him together. You go to Mass, you stand in your pew, but together by the power of the Holy Spirit in the Church, we are being carried closer to God and to the heavenly altar as long as we avoid grave sin.

The sacraments strengthen us to avoid sin and to not compromise the Gospel and the sanctity of human life…that is the purpose of Christ, to show us God has come down to us and to show us He has a human face.

It is the Mass that we are made righteous with Christ because we hear His Word in historical context in the Liturgy of the Word. We are as in an arena listening to the Old Testament, witnessing the faith of the ancient Jewish people, to that of the early Christianity in the foundations of the Church, to the Gospel.

When we hear the Gospel at Mass, we are encountering the same presence and power of Jesus at the Resurrection 2000 years ago. That is why Sunday, formally called Resurrection Sunday, is the greatest feastday of the Church, that happens every week, not Christmas or Easter.

Our renewal and growth is always in Christ, as our faith sees conversion and salvation as a life long process.

And then all is actualized at the summit of the Eucharist at Mass where the Holy Spirit comes down to the altar through the ministry of the priest to change the inner form of bread and wine into His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

So the Mass is the most efficacious place for us to be made righteous, renewed, and restored, and together, come closer to heaven.

The Mass is the first step, here on earth, into heaven. Powerful!

 

[Christian_Unity]

For the record, I believe God normatively saves sinners through the proclamation of the gospel. Yet, I do not deny that God can and does regenerate through the sacrament of baptism. Maybe that makes me a half of a heretic, or I am half saved?

 

[De_Maria]

Back to the OP; I believe God saves us through the proclamation of Christ and Him crucified for sinners for peace and reconciliation with Him through preaching of the gospel. When we receive this truth of the good news, I believe God credits or imputes the righteousness of Christ to our account and are saved and united to Christ by faith, and are eternally adopted into the family of God.

Can you provide a Scripture which says that God “credits or imputes” the righteousness of Christ to our account at the time we proclaim our faith in Him?

Here is what I see:
Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 22:16
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Mark 16:16
King James Version (KJV)
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

I believe Catholic siblings are saved in the same way, when they believe in the good news of God. We may disagree of the purpose of the sacrament of baptism, yet that does not change the truth of what God does and how He does it… for the purpose His glory and His good pleasure. Faith does not save us, rather faith is the instrument God uses to flow the saving grace to us.

Faith is proved by our actions. That is what Scripture says:
James 2:22
Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

And Baptism is the instrument which God uses to flow His saving grace to us:
TRENT VI
CHAPTER VII
IN WHAT THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER CONSISTS, AND WHAT ARE ITS CAUSES
…The causes of this justification are:
the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ and life everlasting; the efficient cause is the merciful God who washes and sanctifies[31] gratuitously, signing and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance,[32] the meritorious cause is His most beloved only begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies,[33] for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us,[34] merited for us justification by His most holy passion on the wood of the cross and made satisfaction for us to God the Father, the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith,[35] without which no man was ever justified finally,
ewtn.com/library/councils/trent6.htm

And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. - 1 Corinthians 2:1-2

That says nothing about imputing or crediting grace upon anyone. That simply says that He preaches Christ crucified. It is the basis for the Catholic practice of having a Crucifix in every Church. We preach Christ crucified.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.” – Rom 1

Absolutely. And having faith, they will seek baptism:
Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. - Ephesians 1:11-14

Absolutely! This seal is a euphemism for the Sacrament of Confirmation.

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above,

These perfect gifts are the Sacraments. Through which the Holy Spirit is given and by whom all other gifts are given to those who believe.

coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; - James 1

Amen!

Where does Scripture say that God credits us with the righteousness of Christ by faith alone?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Christian_Unity]

Can you provide a Scripture which says that God “credits or imputes” the righteousness of Christ to our account at the time we proclaim our faith in Him?

De Maria

Romans 4

English Standard Version (ESV)

What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

Romans 4

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

 

[JonNC]

I was aware of that tension with Lutherans, but did not realize Anglicans believed in baptismal regeneration. Is this belief for infant baptismal regeneration only, or do Lutherans and Anglicans believe in baptismal regeneration for adult converts too? It seems Luther’s belief of justification by faith alone does not fit together with adult baptismal regeneration.

Baptismal regeneration is baptismal regeneration. One is once baptized by water and the Spirit, as scripture tells us.

Word and sacrament are the means that bring us to justifying faith, so there is no conflict between baptismal regeneration and sola fide.

Jon

 

[De_Maria]

For the record, I believe God normatively saves sinners through the proclamation of the gospel.

The requirement of Baptism is part of the Gospel. It is not something separate.

Yet, I do not deny that God can and does regenerate through the sacrament of baptism.

That is the opposite of Forensic Justification.

So, how do you claim that God only forensically justifies while claiming also to believe that God thoroughly washes us of sin and regenerates us as His Children?

The two are mutually exclusive.

Maybe that makes me a half of a heretic, or I am half saved?

Really? You don’t care whether you believe the truth or not? That’s what a shrug signifies.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

I think De Maia needs to learn how to disagree agreeably. Hey, for me… I embrace professing Christians as siblings from the various churches and denominations within the context of orthodoxy, defined within the historic ecumenical creeds (Nicene and Apostles). I believe our differences are speculative based on presuppositions that will be resolved on the other side of glory.

What is agreeable to you? That I should agree with all you teach? In that case, I would misrepresent the Catholic faith. No thanks. I’d rather that you and Guanophore consider me disagreeable.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

By all means, interperse yourself! One of the main reasons I invited De Maria to this thread is because you are here, and I knew you would make this point. Thank you for clarifying your beliefs on Sola Scriptura as well. I realize it was a little off topic but I think it is important to clarify that not all Protestants believe the same way on these issues.

You continue to misrepresent what I say.

The reason that I make certain that Protestants explain themselves, is because I know that Protestants do not believe the same way on these issues. I guarantee I will meet a Lutheran who does not believe the same as Jon.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

I can’t argue with that. However, to take the additional step of declaring their baptism “not valid” as you have consistently done seems to be beyond the boundaries of the lay apologist. …

You continue to twist the arguments and the Teaching of the Church to justify your half truths.

Show me where the Church teaches that intent is set aside for Believer’s Baptisms.

Show me also, where the Church teaches that it is wrong for me or anyone to inform Protestants that their intent must be in accord with the Catholic Church in order for their Baptism to be valid.

As for my declaring anyone’s Baptism invalid, show me where I did that also. As far as I can remember, I was speaking in general terms and identified no one’s Baptism by name. Therefore, show me your claims.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[JonNC]

You continue to misrepresent what I say.

The reason that I make certain that Protestants explain themselves, is because I know that Protestants do not believe the same way on these issues. I guarantee I will meet a Lutheran who does not believe the same as Jon.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Perhaps if you do, it would spark the same kind of dialogue you and Guan have had about Catholic teaching. The fact is, however, there is but one belief that Catholicism teaches about baptism, and one belief that Lutheranism teaches, regardless of debate.

Jon