Forensic Justification - what's your view about it?

[De_Maria]

I think the Spirit baptizes the elect to Christ at the point of when the Spirit opens the heart of the individual elect, enabling the sinner to spirituality see Christ as being desirable, so that the elect freely comes to Christ upon hearing the gospel proclaimed.

Sounds as though you’re making things up as you go along. Can you walk us through the Scriptures which you think support your carefully crafted fable?

I believe water baptism done by the hands of men through the sacrament of baptism represents what the Spirit does apart from and before the sacrament of baptism.

It is not impossible. But the normal means of the transmission of sanctifying grace are the Sacraments. And Baptism is the first of these.

I am interested to hear if Lutherans believe…

I’m not Lutheran.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[guanophore]

Yes, I have probably spoken too broadly but it is hardly a secret what Baptists, for instance, believe about baptism and therefore I don’t think I am too far off in making the point I am making. As I have stated, I always defer to the Church in matters faith, I am just trying to understand and will be having this discussion with my priest tomorrow. As far as doubt is concerned, I have no doubt that the Church is correct in its judgment and the fact that I don’t understand how they arrive there is of no consequence. It certainly doesn’t make me doubt my Church, if that’s what you mean.

I agree with you 100% Steve. I see De Maria’s point that the intent of Protestant baptism is often not what the Catholic Church does, and that many evangelicals deny the power of God working through the sacrament, and it does not make sense to me that they would be accepted for those reasons, I will defer the the Church, and pray for better understanding.

 

[guanophore]

God the Holy Spirit is the thrid person of the Holy Trinity with same sovereign attributes of God the Father. Therefore, I don’t think we can deactivate the Spirit of God. I guess that goes into a deeper discussion and debate regarding the ministry of the Holy Spirit in whom He is trying to save.

Yes this is a major theological issue that may not be appropriate to this thread. Mortal sin is deadly sin, which means that it will keep us from being united with the inheritance that is kept imperishable for us in heaven.

Of course God’s omnipotence cannot be deactivated, but we can certainly remove ourselves from His work in us. You might be more familiar with the term “quench the Spirit”, which is a milder description of what we understand that mortal sin does to us. Mortal sin is equivalent of rejectiong God’s purpose for us (salvation). As an OSAS person, you do not think this is possible, but the Apostles taught us that it is.

I think the Spirit baptizes the elect to Christ at the point of when the Spirit opens the heart of the individual elect, enabling the sinner to spirituality see Christ as being desirable, so that the elect freely comes to Christ upon hearing the gospel proclaimed.

I am curious how you come to call this even “baptism”. Catholics call this prevenient grace, or calling grace, where the HS quickens the mind and heart of those who hear to come to Christ.

water baptism done by the hands of men through the sacrament of baptism represents what the Spirit does apart from and before the sacrament of baptism.

The Apostles did not separate these two, so we do not either. They taught that, during baptism, the person is the recipient of a “circumcision without hands” by the HS.

Can you refer to Acts 10, and tell me at what point you believe Cornelius’ heart became open to God, and was enabled to spiritually see Chirst as being desirable?

 It is true that believers are to be baptized as an act of obdience... which the sacrament is a means of sanctifying grace.

What do you mean by “sanctifying grace”? The Apostles taught that sanctifying grace is grace that makes us holy. You have already said that you don’t believe that the HS works through baptism to make us holy, so I think I am missing something here.

That’s a good one and makes perfect sense since with have two mutually exclusive claims of apostolic succession.

I don’t understand this preoccupation you have with “mutually exclusive”. Usually people that get stuck in that mode are very concrete thinkers, unable to apprehend “both/and”.

But for the record, we and the Orthodox do not have any such mutual exclusion with regard to Apostolic succession. We recognize their succession just as valid as ours, and their sacraments also.

Orthodox, though think of Catholics like we do Protestants (a community that has departed from the One Faith), so they do not welcome us at their sacraments, or consider ours valid.

Now, that’s an unbiblical view… we can start a new thread on that one. I side with Augustine on this debate of the sovereignity of God.

Oh yes let’s! I think we need to get more into Augustine. Catholics also side with Augustine ont he Sovereignty of God. We believe that, in His sovereignty, He created mankind in His own image and likeness, with the ability to choose Him, or reject Him.

Please start with Romans 9 and Ephesian 1, and John 1 and John 6 … and then maybe we should start a thread on predestination and free will. Augustine is the man who crushed Pelagius!

Indeed. and perhaps more study of his work will help you understand that Catholics are not “semi-Pelagian”, as you have erroneously been given to believe.

 

[guanophore]

By what authority have you pronounced them all valid?
Sincerely,

De Maria

I have done no such thing. I have asserted that the inquisition of such a matter is beyond the scope of the lay apologist.

The sacramental bond of the unity of Christians

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."81 "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."82

The Catechism teaches that those who have been properly baptized are justified by faith. It is the duty of the ordained to rule on the validity of the sacraments. What I have said is that your statement that Protestant baptisms are “not valid” because they do not believe baptism is regenerative is not a criteria that is referenced here. We can accept trinitarian baptized Christians as our separated brethren.

Now, if you personally do not wish to extend brotherly love to Protestants, that is between you and your Maker. You may continue to disparage the workings of the HS in their ecclesial communities if you wish. It seems that you feel called of God to do so. You can continue in your mantra that, if they don’t believe as you do, they have “no faith at all”. It sounds like you are contradicting the catechism.

 

[Christian_Unity]

Yes this is a major theological issue that may not be appropriate to this thread. Mortal sin is deadly sin, which means that it will keep us from being united with the inheritance that is kept imperishable for us in heaven.

Of course God’s omnipotence cannot be deactivated, but we can certainly remove ourselves from His work in us. You might be more familiar with the term “quench the Spirit”, which is a milder description of what we understand that mortal sin does to us. Mortal sin is equivalent of rejectiong God’s purpose for us (salvation). As an OSAS person, you do not think this is possible, but the Apostles taught us that it is.

I am curious how you come to call this even “baptism”. Catholics call this prevenient grace, or calling grace, where the HS quickens the mind and heart of those who hear to come to Christ.

The Apostles did not separate these two, so we do not either. They taught that, during baptism, the person is the recipient of a “circumcision without hands” by the HS.

Can you refer to Acts 10, and tell me at what point you believe Cornelius’ heart became open to God, and was enabled to spiritually see Chirst as being desirable?

What do you mean by “sanctifying grace”? The Apostles taught that sanctifying grace is grace that makes us holy. You have already said that you don’t believe that the HS works through baptism to make us holy, so I think I am missing something here.

I don’t understand this preoccupation you have with “mutually exclusive”. Usually people that get stuck in that mode are very concrete thinkers, unable to apprehend “both/and”.

But for the record, we and the Orthodox do not have any such mutual exclusion with regard to Apostolic succession. We recognize their succession just as valid as ours, and their sacraments also.

Orthodox, though think of Catholics like we do Protestants (a community that has departed from the One Faith), so they do not welcome us at their sacraments, or consider ours valid.

Now, that’s an unbiblical view… we can start a new thread on that one. I side with Augustine on this debate of the sovereignity of God.

Oh yes let’s! I think we need to get more into Augustine. Catholics also side with Augustine ont he Sovereignty of God. We believe that, in His sovereignty, He created mankind in His own image and likeness, with the ability to choose Him, or reject Him.

Indeed. and perhaps more study of his work will help you understand that Catholics are not “semi-Pelagian”, as you have erroneously been given to believe.

 

[Christian_Unity]

Good discussions; I’ll start a predestination and free will thread. I do consider these things as secondary issues which should never divide the body of Christ. I believe Catholic theology allows much breath and diversity on these issues too. I do not mean to sound negative in the word semi-pelagian. Maybe we can come up with a different description to describe the Catholic views on this tough issue?

 

[onemangang]

Interestingly, some Orthodox rebaptize Catholics, from what I’ve heard

Jon

One reason why I did not covert to Eastern Orthodox!

You do understand that the EO does NOT view a Bishop as having and indellible mark on their soul!

The Catholic Church looks as once receiving Holy Orders and becoming a Bishop they are one forever being that the mark is placed on the soul, even if they leave the faith! The EO looks at it differently!

I know as a Lutheran you would see Apostolic differently than Catholics, but if you were to explore the EO view of Apostolic Succession being passed on in the Church, you would see you have more in common with the EO as a Lutheran, than you would with the Catholic Church on that matter!

 

[JonNC]

=Christian Unity;10054702]I think the Spirit baptizes the elect to Christ at the point of when the Spirit opens the heart of the individual elect, enabling the sinner to spirituality see Christ as being desirable, so that the elect freely comes to Christ upon hearing the gospel proclaimed. I believe water baptism done by the hands of men through the sacrament of baptism represents what the Spirit does apart from and before the sacrament of baptism.

A scriptural reference, please, that the two are distinct. There is no difference between the two. Baptism is by water and the Spirit.
From Luther’s Large Catechism:

Comprehend the difference, then, that Baptism is quite another thing than all other water; not on account of the natural quality but because something more noble is here added; for God Himself stakes His honor, His power and might on it. Therefore it is not only natural water, but a divine, heavenly, holy, and blessed water, and in whatever other terms we can praise it,-all on account of the Word, which is a heavenly, holy Word, that no one can sufficiently extol, for it has, and is able to do, all that God is and can do [since it has all the virtue and power of God comprised in it]. 18] Hence also it derives its essence as a Sacrament, as St. Augustine also taught: Accedat verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum. **That is, when the Word is joined to the element or natural substance, it becomes a Sacrament, that is, a holy and divine matter and sign. **

I am interested to hear if Lutherans believe in adult baptismal regeneration since Luther coined justification by faith alone. I’m okay with infant baptismal regeneration in which Luther believed after leaving the Catholic Church. It is true that believers are to be baptized as an act of obdience… which the sacrament is a means of sanctifying grace.

Baptism is baptism, whether done as an adult or as an infant.
From Luther’s Small Catechism:

What does Baptism give or profit?–Answer.

It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.

Which are such words and promises of God? Answer.

Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Mark: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

I embrace professing Christians as siblings from the various churches and denominations within the context of orthodoxyp.

This is the Catholic paradigm as well.

 

[JonNC]

=De Maria;10054873]Sounds as though you’re making things up as you go along. Can you walk us through the Scriptures which you think support your carefully crafted fable?

While I think it is uncharitable to refer to CU’s belief as a “carefully crafted fable”, I too would like to hear this scriptural walk. I would contend that phrasing your question the way you have does not lead to constructive dialogue. Further, any hope of convincing CU otherwise regarding this particular belief (which you and I consider false) is all the harder.

It is not impossible. But the normal means of the transmission of sanctifying grace are the Sacraments. And Baptism is the first of these.

Agreed.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

By what authority have you pronounced them all valid?

We pronounce them valid when the Church has pronounced them valid.

That is the Catholic way.

To proclaim otherwise is to set oneself up as, to use my friend guanophore’s term, the Inquisitor.

That is, of course, above our paygrade.

 

[Christian_Unity]

While I think it is uncharitable to refer to CU’s belief as a “carefully crafted fable”, I too would like to hear this scriptural walk. I would contend that phrasing your question the way you have does not lead to constructive dialogue. Further, any hope of convincing CU otherwise regarding this particular belief (which you and I consider false) is all the harder.

Agreed.

Jon

Luther and Calvin may have disagreed regarding the sacraments. However, I do beileve they both embraced a forensic justification. How can Luther be credited for the coined phraise of “justification by faith alone is the article in which the church stands and falls” and not embrace a forensic justifcation?

Scripture, when it treats of justification by faith, leads us in a very different direction. Turning away our view from our own works, it bids us look only to the mercy of God and the perfection of Christ. The order of justification which it sets before us is this: first, God of his mere gratuitous goodness is pleased to embrace the sinner, in whom he sees nothing that can move him to mercy but wretchedness, because he sees him altogether naked and destitute of good works. He, therefore, seeks the cause of kindness in himself, that thus he may affect the sinner by a sense of his goodness, and induce him, in distrust of his own works, to cast himself entirely upon his mercy for salvation. This is the meaning of faith by which the sinner comes into the possession of salvation, when, according to the doctrine of the Gospel, he perceives that he is reconciled by God; when, by the intercession of Christ, he obtains the pardon of his sins, and is justified; and, though renewed by the Spirit of God, considers that, instead of leaning on his own works, he must look solely to the righteousness which is treasured up for him in Christ.

John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion (3.11.16)

 

[onemangang]

As it has pointed out already, the normative way unto regeneration is through baptism and faith!

I will not limit God to ONLY being able to regenerate in Baptism, but I will not go as far to say that hearing the Gospel and beliving, equals regeneration!

Can God regenerate through the hearing of the gospel and believing, sure He can, has He, most likely, but is that a normative way, where as you can say, “God uses the gospel preached to regenerate, therefore hearing the gospel and believing equals regeneration” No you can NOT make that claim eniquivocally, to do so would be misleading!

In regards to INTENT, we must submit to the wisdom of the Church, I have personaly seen people coming out of the Calvary Chapel tradition, entering into full communion with the Church, and when they do so they are being CONDITIONALY baptized, because the INTENT was in question!

With that being said, people have also seen baptism’s performed by a baptist minister being accepted as valid, must we draw the conclusion that the baptism ministers intent was other than what the Church says is necessary intent? We do not have full knowledge on that matter? Yet is it likely the baptist ministers intent was in communion with the Church requirement of intent, probably not!

There is a lenghty article from the EWTN web site that I found to be beneficial into examining the criteria for intent, perhaps this will further shed light onto this subject

ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/INTENTIO.TXT

 

[PRmerger]

See 1 Cor 1 as the requirment to understand the Scriptures. If the Holy Spirit dwells in the believer, and if a Catholic is no longer in a state of grace based on mortal sin, etc… then does the Holy Spirit leave the Catholic believer during that time of not being in a state of grace?

The Holy Spirit is within us who are baptized, Chrstian Unity. But we leak.

 

[Christian_Unity]

from Monergism.com:

“Our sins, when laid upon Christ, were yet personally ours, not his; so his righteousness, when put upon us, is yet personally his, not ours.” - John Bunyan

“The gospel is saying that, what man cannot do in order to be accepted with God, this God himself has done for us in the person of Jesus Christ. To be acceptable to God we must present to God a life of perfect and unceasing obedience to his will. The gospel declares that Jesus has done this for us. For God to be righteous he must deal with our sin. This also he has done for us in Jesus. The holy law of God was lived out perfectly for us by Christ, and its penalty was paid perfectly for us by Christ. The living and dying of Christ for us, and this alone is the basis of our acceptance with God.”

• Graeme Goldsworthy, Gospel and Kingdom, p. 86

“In the imputation of Adam’s sin to us, of our sins to Christ, and of Christ’s righteousness to believers, the nature of imputation is the same, so that one case illustrates the other” (Hodge: Systematic Theology, 2:194).

“Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.”. (Rom 5:15-18)

Paul is making the point that if Adam’s disobedience to the law of God was the reason for death, then Jesus full obedience to all the prescriptions of the divine law unto death is what brings us righteouness.

 

[PRmerger]

“Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.”. (Rom 5:15-18)

Paul is making the point that if Adam’s disobedience to the law of God was the reason for death, then Jesus full obedience to all the prescriptions of the divine law unto death is what brings us righteouness.

Amen! This is very Catholic!

 

[Christian_Unity]

The Holy Spirit is within us who are baptized, Chrstian Unity. But we leak.

LOL… good one! Yet if it glorifies God to finish the work that He started, the leak would be plugged by God for the reason of God’s glory and our good. Salvation of sinners if first and foremost, for God’s glory and His name sake. We are only secondary beneficaries to such a glorious act of kindness, mercy, and grace… for the praise of His glorious grace (Ephesians 1). If you really want to understand my perspective and view, I recommend that you read this book. Don’t worry, there is no anti-Catholic material in it.

amazon.com/The-Pleasures-God-Meditations-Delight/dp/1576736652/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1353773075&sr=8-1&keywords=the+pleasures+of+god

 

[Christian_Unity]

Amen! This is very Catholic!

How about this one?

“In the imputation of Adam’s sin to us, of our sins to Christ, and of Christ’s righteousness to believers, the nature of imputation is the same, so that one case illustrates the other” (Hodge: Systematic Theology, 2:194).

CS Lewis who was very Catholic friendly described imputation as “the great exchange”; my sins exchanged for His righteousness. Here is the Bible verse too in regards to imputation and a forensic justification:

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. - 2 Corinthians 5:21

 

[Christian_Unity]

While I think it is uncharitable to refer to CU’s belief as a “carefully crafted fable”, I too would like to hear this scriptural walk. I would contend that phrasing your question the way you have does not lead to constructive dialogue. Further, any hope of convincing CU otherwise regarding this particular belief (which you and I consider false) is all the harder.

Agreed.

Jon

Here you go Jon… in regards to Martin Luther: A forensic justification and imputation is what Luther believed.

presenttruthmag.com/archive/III/3-4.htm

gracesermons.com/robbeeee/imputed.html

 

[JonNC]

Luther and Calvin may have disagreed regarding the sacraments. However, I do beileve they both embraced a forensic justification. How can Luther be credited for the coined phraise of “justification by faith alone is the article in which the church stands and falls” and not embrace a forensic justifcation?

Scripture, when it treats of justification by faith, leads us in a very different direction. Turning away our view from our own works, it bids us look only to the mercy of God and the perfection of Christ. The order of justification which it sets before us is this: first, God of his mere gratuitous goodness is pleased to embrace the sinner, in whom he sees nothing that can move him to mercy but wretchedness, because he sees him altogether naked and destitute of good works. He, therefore, seeks the cause of kindness in himself, that thus he may affect the sinner by a sense of his goodness, and induce him, in distrust of his own works, to cast himself entirely upon his mercy for salvation. This is the meaning of faith by which the sinner comes into the possession of salvation, when, according to the doctrine of the Gospel, he perceives that he is reconciled by God; when, by the intercession of Christ, he obtains the pardon of his sins, and is justified; and, though renewed by the Spirit of God, considers that, instead of leaning on his own works, he must look solely to the righteousness which is treasured up for him in Christ.

John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion (3.11.16)

Did you read the link I provied in post #15?

What if the question is not, what is the basis for our salvation, but rather what must we do to receive salvation? On a simplistic understanding of “forensic justification”, you would think that the answer would be “Nothing! Christ has done it all”. But that is a misunderstanding of forensic justification, and it is not the Lutheran answer. The Lutheran answer is: repentance, baptism, holy communion, striving for obedience, confession and absolution when we fail, hearing the Word of God, following a discipline of prayer; in short, passing the remainder of our lives in peace and repentance. This is to live the life in Christ, which means to receive forgiveness of sins and the divine life through the means which God has appointed: by hearing and taking to heart the Church’s kerygma and participating in her covenanted mysteries, or (to use Lutheran language) through Word and Sacrament. To think that being saved by grace alone, through faith alone, means that we need not live the life in Christ, that we can just walk away from the means of grace, is a contradiction. **
But here is the key distinction: to live the life in Christ (that is, life in the Church) through Word and Sacrament is how we receive, enter into, and appropriate our salvation, but it is not the basis of our salvation.** It is the work of Christ that accomplishes our salvation; our participation adds nothing to His work, but serves only to appropriate what he has has done (all that has come to pass for us). It is to safeguard that understanding of the work of Christ, not to exclude the importance of living the life in Christ, that “forensic justification” is emphasized.

IOW, word and sacrament, which we find in the Church, are the means by which we receive grace. Forensic justification doesn’t exclude the forgiveness of sins we receive in Baptism.

Jon