Forensic Justification - what's your view about it?

[jmcrae]

I understand the Reformed view and Lutheran view which is different than easy believism. Lordship is big in the Reformed circles too. However, the issue is a forensic justification. I still don’t believe Luther believed in an adult baptismal regeneration position, rather he believed in a forensic justification through imputation.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide

I think that’s an incredibly sad and hopeless view of the world.

I’m glad I believe that people can, by God’s grace, be made actual Saints. I hope to go to Heaven - not merely because I fear Hell, but because I want to be a Saint - I want to be holy - not just *appear *to be holy - even if God Himself is taken in (fooled) by the appearance.

 

[Christian_Unity]

I think that’s an incredibly sad and hopeless view of the world.

I’m glad I believe that people can, by God’s grace, be made actual Saints. I hope to go to Heaven - not merely because I fear Hell, but because I want to be a Saint - I want to be holy - not just *appear *to be holy - even if God Himself is taken in (fooled) by the appearance.

God’s requirment is perfection and sinlessness. I don’t think any Catholic Saint achieved the biblical requirment for reconcilation with God through their own personal holiness.

What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”

9 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

The Promise Realized Through Faith

13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17 as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. 18 In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.” 19 He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb. 20 No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, 21 fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. 22 That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.” 23 But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification. - Rom 4

 

[KathleenGee]

In response to your remark in blue…I don’t think the saints thought that way at all!!

How many saints’ lives have you read and discovered their profound sense of agnegation…!?!

Me thinks you were in some kind of spin zone about Catholics…

There is a great book out, Butler’s ‘Lives of the Saints’.

 

[SteveVH]

Remember, Protestant theology makes a distinction between positional justification (forensic) and sanctification (personal holiness). When is the adult Catholic considered born from above, when hearing and receiving the gospel by faith, or when the adult believer partakes in the sacrament of baptism?

Baptism.

 

[Christian_Unity]

Baptism.

heartoftn.net/users/gary27/aboutbap.htm

 

[guanophore]

Yep, very contradictory theology by Luther. Do you have something which shows that Luther believed in adult baptismal regeneration? I thought he only believed in infant baptismal regeneration which makes more sense. I’ve seen Lutheran statement of faith websites and they are very similar to Reformed Churches on the essentials. Maybe you are mistaken in regards to Martin Luther’s view on adult baptismal regeneration, but maybe I’m incorrect.

It seems contradictory to you because you have been brought to believe a very narrow definition of salvation.

What would make you think that adult baptism would have any different effects than infant? Is it because you consider baptism a “human work”?

How does infant baptismal regeneration “make much more sense?”

Lutherans’ have retained the Apostolic teaching that the sacraments are effective channels of God’s grace. They accomplish that which they signify.

 

[guanophore]

If our relationship with God is dependent on our personal holiness and sinlessness, then we would all still be children of the darkness, and would not qualify as adopted children of God. That is the very reason God became man, so we can be reconciled to God and adopted into his family of the basis of the person and work of Christ on our behalf. How does the Apostle Paul describe himself during his lifetime on personal holiness? What we are really discussing is the sufficiency of Jesus Christ on our behalf. We are united to Christ, so He sees us in Christ. Our vital union with Christ is everything!

Yes, this is true. However, the Apostles taught that our personal holiness and sinlessness must be dependent upon grace, through faith. This is the only way that we can become holy, as He is holy.

Salvation begins when we are put into right relationship with God, being joined with Jesus in His death and resurrection, and becoming partakers of the divine nature.

Heb 12:14-17
14 Strive for peace with all men, and** for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord**. 15 See to it that no one fail to obtain the grace of God; that no “root of bitterness” spring up and cause trouble, and by it the many become defiled; 16 that no one be immoral or irreligious like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. 17 For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.

Now this letter is written to believers, and this is instruction for Christian living. We are to “strive” for holiness. We do not see the Lord just because we are “declared” righteous, but because we actually ARE righteous. He desires to create in us the holiness that He has established when we were initially justified.

If all the grace we ever needed has already been obtained, then why are we instructed to see to it that no one fail to obtain it? Bitterness, unforgiveness, and immorality separate us from that state of justification with God.

Reformed Christians as well as other Protestants (Lutheran, Anglicans, etc) do believe that the sacraments are a means of sanctifying grace. Baptist and non-denominational Christians reject that view. The issue here and the thread topic is about a forensic justification. It would help to understand that historic Protestantism separates justification from the process of sanctification. Catholics don’t make such a distinction; therefore, we are going to run into definition issues and talk beyond each other.

Why do you suppose that Calvin separated those?

We are going to confuse each other. Remember, Luther said that the doctrine of justification by faith alone is the article in which the church stands or fall. The thread topic of a forensic justification and imputation is really about what Luther and the others Reformers believed on the vital issue of justification (being right with God). We need to go back and understand that Protestants make a big separation between justification and sanctification (personal holiness). Catholic theology does not make such a separation and distinction. It helps to understand our mutually exclusive positions on these issues regarding salvation. There is much common ground, but what separate Protestants from Catholics are two main issues: authority and our views on justification.

I think the Joint Declaration has resolved the enmity between Catholics and Lutherans on the issue of justification.

Why the “big separation”? Why was it deemed necessary to depart from the apostolic faith in this way?

I really don’t see them as mutually exclusive, since the Church believes as is stated in the Joint Declaration.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t believe most Protestant are opposed to the sacrament of baptism. All Christians should immediately partake in the sacrament of baptism for an act of obedience and for sanctifying grace. It is interesting that the CCC mentioned that baptism brings sanctifying grace…which I believe too as a Protestant. It seems a Protestant view of sanctifying grace meets the intent of the CCC in regards to baptism.

I am not sure what Reformed Christians understand by that term sanctifying grace. The Apostles told us that grace is poured into us, and it makes us holy. I am not sure what it means to a person who denies baptismal regeneration.

Yep, I know. I distance myself from Fundamentalism and independent Baptist theology. The conservative Fundamentalist right wing political agenda is a movement that I opposed strongly. As a Reformed Christians, you can verify with the Reformed confessionals that we believe the sacraments are a means of sanctifying grace. I would guess that Lutheran, Anglican, and Methodist would be other Protestant denominations who would say that the sacraments are a means of sanctifying grace. We have a new light in regards to the CCC; it seems we are in agreement that baptism is a means of sanctifying grace… boy I worried about the intent clause. There is no where in that CCC reference about baptism is for justifying grace; it only mentions sanctifying grace.

For Catholics, justification is being in right relationship with God. This is often referred to as being in a “state of grace”. We believe this begins at baptism:

1 Cor 6:11
But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Baptism washes away all sins, original and personal, and places the recipient in right relationship with God.

 

[De_Maria]

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 have to apologize to Guanaphore. I was not aware of this Papal instruction from 1896:
As Pope Leo XIII said in 1896:

The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. [Apostolicae Curae 33; emphasis added]
calledtocommunion.com/2012/03/are-protestant-baptisms-valid/

So, where heretic Baptisms are concerned, there is no need to judge intention. Matter and form is sufficient.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

By what authority…

I apologize, you were right and I was wrong.

I found it myself.

As Pope Leo XIII said in 1896:

The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. [Apostolicae Curae 33; emphasis added]
calledtocommunion.com/201…aptisms-valid/

So, where heretic Baptisms are concerned, there is no need to judge intention. Matter and form is sufficient.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[guanophore]

Remember, Protestant theology makes a distinction between positional justification (forensic) and sanctification (personal holiness). When is the adult Catholic considered born from above, when hearing and receiving the gospel by faith, or when the adult believer partakes in the sacrament of baptism?

The Apostles did not separate the faith that comes by hearing, and the baptism of those who have been graced to believe, so we do not separate them either. All converts described in scripture were immediately bapitzed. As the Church grew, it became prudent to make sure the convert or catechuman understood the ramifications of the decision they were making, because it could very well be lethal. More instruction prior to baptism became the norm, and still is today.

Since it is the same grace in which we are justified that produces sanctification, why is it so important to separate them?

I understand the Reformed view and Lutheran view which is different than easy believism. Lordship is big in the Reformed circles too. However, the issue is a forensic justification. I still don’t believe Luther believed in an adult baptismal regeneration position, rather he believed in a forensic justification through imputation.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide

In general I would say that Wikipedia is not necessarily a reliable source, especially in matters of theology. If you start there, make sure you check the sources to make sure the author understood them.

Of course Luther believed in forensic justification through imputation. This is part of the Apostolic faith. We are justified by a Source of grace that comes from outside of us, which we do not deserve, and which Christ earned for us. These concepts are in the Bible because they are Catholic. They are not the only concepts though, on justification.

As JonNC has pointed out, justification by grace through faith is not exclusive of baptismal regeneration. God can regenerate anyone He wants, however He likes. But He chose to work through Baptism. We believe that John the Baptist was justified and sanctified while still in his mother’s womb. This is not the norm, though.

V

God’s requirment is perfection and sinlessness. I don’t think any Catholic Saint achieved the biblical requirment for reconcilation with God through their own personal holiness.

Of course they do. They do not become the righteousness of God in Christ just because they are “declared” justified. They actually are transformed by the grace of God at work in them to will and to do His good pleasure. Their lives are no longer theirs, but Christ’s. They no longer live for themselves, but for Christ.

How did the parents of John the Baptist become righteous before God?

Luke 1:5-6

5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechari’ah, of the division of Abi’jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

 

[guanophore]

I have to apologize to Guanaphore. I was not aware of this Papal instruction from 1896:
As Pope Leo XIII said in 1896:

The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. [Apostolicae Curae 33; emphasis added]
calledtocommunion.com/2012/03/are-protestant-baptisms-valid/

So, where heretic Baptisms are concerned, there is no need to judge intention. Matter and form is sufficient.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Thank for digging up that passage De Maria.:thankyou: Sometimes finding the authorative documents is like searching for hen’s teeth! I am gonna save that one in the archives.

I think he is saying, though, that baptism conferred by a ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, not that the recipient is a heretic. I remember reading about this battle in the Church during the Arian heresy, and that the theologians were divided on whether or not to accept baptisms by those who were considered embracing heretical views.

Although it is true that our separated brethren do embrace a number of heretical views (some more than others), most of them cannot qualify for the term “heretic” because they have never embraced the fullness of Truth, in order to depart from it.

I think Sproul’s article linked above really summarizes what has happened to Protestant ecclesial communities. He says “it can be reduced to…”. Although he was speaking of justification at the time, I think this has happened with a great many things in the Christian faith, where the Sacred Tradition continues to be unravelled to the point where the resulting garment is almost unrecognizable as Christian, and in some cases, clearly is not.

 

[guanophore]

I apologize, you were right and I was wrong.

No apology needed, De Maria. You were right all along about the matter of intention. We are in agreement that most Protestants deny regenerative baptism, and that they really don’t
“intend” what the CC does. You are also right that every convert comes under the judgement of the priest receiving them, whether they will have a conditional baptism.

It is my prayer that our separated brethren will be restored to the fullness of faith with regard to what the HS does in baptism, as taught by the Apostles. Toward that end may you continue with your vigorous defense of the faith, and in the corporate work of mercy in instructing the ignorant.

 

[PJM]

=Christian Unity;10026919]Colossians 2:13-15 – Forensic Justification

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

Forensic Justification - what’s your view about it? Since this is a Catholic Forum site, please explain why this Protestant view is incorrect.

My dear friend in Christ, WELCOME to the CAF Forum

The difficulty for me is not provinding both an answer and the evidence that supports it; it’s SPACE LIMITS. So please don’t take my direct approach as unchairatble.

The most elementary “probem” with this position is that it is simply unbiblical, and therefore cannot be true. The “cause” is multifaceted and includes “culling” ONLY supportive passages; having missed the message in it’s totality; and a lack of understanding steming form a perceived right [not actually given] for self-interpretation of bible text.

IF I understand the issue properly is flows from a “Faith Alone” theology, which is easly refuted by these verses:

“Proverbs 30:5-6 Every word of God is tested; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Add nothing to his words, lest he reprimand you, and you be proved a liar.

Luke 4:4 “And Jesus answered him: It is written, that Man liveth not by bread alone, but by every word of God.”

Luke 11:28 “But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it”

The REAL issue is disobedience to God and His appointed Teachers. The NT alone has more than 100 references for ONLY One Church:

John.10: 16 “And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd”

Ps.127:1 “Unless the LORD builds the house, those who build it labor in vain.
Unless the LORD watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain”

Romans 13: 1-4 “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, **and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. **

Acts.20: 28 “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you [singular] overseers, to care for the church of God [SINGULAR] which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.”

This my friend is what the Protestant communions miss.

LOOK UP THE FOLLOWING Passages; EACH OF WHICH IS FROM Christ to His Apostles ALONE [and through them by absolute necessity; today RCC] Mt. 28:19-20

Here’s a site that will make it easy for you to do so:
http://www.drbo.org/

Mt. 10:1-8
Mt. 16:15-19
Mt. 18:18 powers extended here to ALL of the Apostles
Mt.28:16-20 Powers extended through Succession by verses 19-20
Jn.14: 16-17
Jn.20:21-22 [fulfills the above promise]
Jn.17:15-19 where Jesus actually GIVES HIMSELF as a Personal warranty of what His “One God; One set of Faith beliefs, and only One Church” Biblical teaching supports, as does OT history and logic itself. There can be only ONE truth per precise issue. The Teaching of the CC go all the way back to Christ Himself. No one else can support that calin factually.

THEN there are these clear, direct, and precise rebuttals to “Faith Alone” as each of these passages ADD to the minimum requirements for ones personal salvation

John 3:5 [Baptism]
John 3:36 [Obedience to ALLTeachings]
Mt.19:17 [Keep the Ccommandments]
Rom.6: 14; Rom.3: 24 [GRACE]
Luke.14: 7 “Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple” SUFFERING!
Jn.20:19-23 **Actual forgivness of sin as COMMANDED by Christ Himself. **MORTAL si WILL send one to hell if NOT forgiven.

There’s alot more but prudently space in limited.

Again WELCOME, let’s discuss it:thumbsup:

God Bless
Pat/PJM

 

[SteveVH]

I have to apologize to Guanaphore. I was not aware of this Papal instruction from 1896:
As Pope Leo XIII said in 1896:

The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. [Apostolicae Curae 33; emphasis added]
calledtocommunion.com/2012/03/are-protestant-baptisms-valid/

So, where heretic Baptisms are concerned, there is no need to judge intention. Matter and form is sufficient.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Thanks for this. I have my answer.

 

[Christian_Unity]

I’m trying to keep up… very interesting

 

[KathleenGee]

I remember in my classes with a priest put in by Archbishop Levada, who later became head of office of, put it in context, Orthodoxy…right way of Catholic belief, I asked him in class how could we prove Catholicism through secular means.

He answered that it involves a paper trail, artifacts, historical documents. As stated here, the emphasis by the Apostles is that they actually witnessed Christ…and together…to affirm what is true in memory of Him, and in their witness of Him after He rose from the dead.

When Christ rose from the dead, He was beginning His divine ministry, and gave the apostles the power to forgive sin, and give the Church this social dimension that we have a human face to speak to about our own sinfulness, and a human face representing Christ that forgives and strengthens us, and makes us whole and connect to the world around us again…alive in Christ.

We are never to judge one’s intentions. The spiritual discipline of the Church is never to judge other people, especially by outward appearances.

Again, we are operating from and living from the sanctifying presence and grace given to us through our faith, our participation in worship and sacraments, and then living this out in every day life. That is as far as we go with our focus.

I am in my mid 60s, went through my time of questioning and doubt when I was young, and finally became convinced of my affiliation through my father by a simple statement. In all my entire life, I have always witnessed the Church keeping the focus on us and our own lives. There may be outward forces that are addressed and identified, but we are raised in faith to keep the focus on ourselves and our own sinfulness.

 

[KathleenGee]

De Maria, thanks for reference from Called to Communion website.

I find them very insightful because they can better articulate questions and issues that are raised by our Protestant brethren…and how the site is aptly named.

The greatest fruit of being Catholic is communion…and how we grow in this…and are blessed by it experiencing a sense of communion in all the good in every day life the Lord has created.

 

[Christian_Unity]

For those trying to find this thread.

 

[Erich]

I had posed the following questions in the In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity thread, and was asked to post them here. I see that this thread has already been ongoing for quite some time, so if these questions have already been answered somewhere in the previous 27 pages, I apologize in advance and ask that someone who’s been following along can summarize the answers.

1. Is a dead body really a body?
2. If a man says he has faith, and has no works, can his faith save him?
3. How are we justified…is it by faith alone? (already answered affirmatively by ChristianUnity, to whom these questions were directed)
4. Can an incomplete faith save us?
5. Can someone, through well doing (good works), receive eternal life?