Free Grace Salvation

[Kliska]

So is it forced, in the case of the Good Shepard, or not?

Salvation isn’t. Sanctification… well, let’s just say that once someone is indwelt and sealed with the Holy Spirit, it is like someone sitting on a stack of lit dynamite singing, “I shall not be moved.” Sanctification is of the Spirit not of the flesh, meaning that we can’t become sanctified without the Spirit’s help, that is why it is called the fruit of the Spirit, not the fruit of us.

Catholics believe in any case that justification and sanctification are inseparable. God wants authentically righteous people, which He’s perfectly capable of creating, having made His creation in a “state of journeying” to perfection, as our catechism puts it.

And the only authentically righteous Person is Jesus. We agree on the point of state of journeying, however.

Ok let me try this for a third time. Lets say someone who becomes “saved” in a one time event at the age of 15. Becomes a protestant minister. Lets say on the side he is having an affair with one of the members of the church. He is also a thief he is taking money from the church to strengthen his bank account. to cover his tracks he is telling multiple lies. He is an adulterer, thief, and liar who believes in God. He has no plans to turn away from sin because he is “saved.” The sex with the married woman feels good and he loves the extra money in his bank account. Is this mans behavior sinful or not? At the time of this mans death is this mans love for his sinful lifestyle compatible with living in heaven? Is his behavior a rejection of God’s commandments? Is his behavior in communion with God? Will God force someone kicking and screaming into heaven to live with him who does not desire to follow his commandments? Or is he saved no matter what because of a one time event?

If the person never becomes apostate, then they are still saved. Let me give a Biblical take; the Corinthians were carnal Christians. They were doing things just as bad or worse than you describe, in fact, they were worse than the pagans and the pagans couldn’t believe what they were doing, but they are always referred to as brethren. Brethren are brothers and sisters in Christ. Should they be disciplined? Yes, even to the point of being kicked out of the gathering. That doesn’t speak to their salvation. God will not drag someone kicking and screaming into Heaven that doesn’t want to live with Him, but again, that falls under apostasy.

Now, as others will rightly point out; what are the chances that this person was ever saved at all?

 

[Kliska]

It is directed to the Hebrews, but it is directed to Christian Hebrews. This is clear from his words. For example,

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

You are right that “sanctify” has a broad meaning, but it is clearly in reference to justification by the words “blood of the covenant.” We know also that this concerns the New Covenant, not the Old Covenant, because he is writing about Jews who were turning back to the Old Covenant, not despising it.

But, would that not be apostasy? What I see Paul as teaching is that if these believers think they can go back to the old covenant, they are sorely mistaken, further emphasizing the idea that once the gospel is even heard, there can be no sacrifice for sin in the old manner. If they attempt to do so, or deny Jesus’ once for all sacrifice they are going to be in extraordinarily bad form come judgment day; they are denying the efficacy and preeminence of Jesus’ sacrifice and trying to force new wine into old wineskins. In effect, they would be putting the blood of animals over Jesus’.

I think we are actually closer to agreement than what we think. lol

 

[fhansen]

Salvation isn’t. Sanctification… well, let’s just say that once someone is indwelt and sealed with the Holy Spirit, it is like someone sitting on a stack of lit dynamite singing, “I shall not be moved.” Sanctification is of the Spirit not of the flesh, meaning that we can’t become sanctified without the Spirit’s help, that is why it is called the fruit of the Spirit, not the fruit of us.

But, as scripture tells us, we can resist the Spirit, return to the flesh.

And the only authentically righteous Person is Jesus. We agree on the point of state of journeying, however.

A dog is righteous to the extent that he’s true to his “dog nature”, and, lacking free will, he can’t do otherwise. God didn’t make humans to be unrighteous, after all; they, too, have a righteousness-a perfection-proper to their natures. Since the fall of man that perfection has been lost. Jesus came to restore us to the heights from which we fell, and reportedly, even higher yet!

 

[Kliska]

But, as scripture tells us, we can resist the Spirit, return to the flesh.

I agree to the first, and disagree on the second. Which may also help explain differing positions. We can resist the Spirit, but once saved the Spirit seals us and indwells us. The flesh is always a part of us until we get our glorified bodies. Paul teaches a perpetual wresting match between the two; one opponent doesn’t all of a sudden disappear even when one gets thrown to the mat.

Paul himself bemoaned the current state of his flesh, and called himself, in the present tense, the chiefest of sinners.

A dog is righteous to the extent that he’s true to his “dog nature”, and, lacking free will, he can’t do otherwise. God didn’t make humans to be unrighteous, after all; they, too, have a righteousness-a perfection-proper to their natures. Since the fall of man that perfection has been lost. Jesus came to restore us to the heights from which we fell, and reportedly, even higher yet!

None of us are righteous, no not one. Our actual righteousness, which is truly called righteousness not evil deeds, is as filthy rags to God. So we are left in a quandary. Only the truly righteous can get to Heaven, so how do we make it if only God is good? The righteousness of Christ that is imputed to us when we trust Him. God is the only Being that can be righteous enough, and He offers grace and a way to tap into that grace; via faith.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Does that remark not strike you as somewhat presumptuous? You cannot assume that the two are completely the same, just as one cannot assume that Lutheran and Calvinistic monergism are completely the same. The East has developed a doctrine of synergy primarily based on the understanding of St. Maximus the Confessor on the deification of man, which diverges from the Western tradition in maintaining a clear distinction between what pertains to nature and what pertains to hypostasis (that is what pertains to the manner of one’s existence).

I must disagree. In the Eastern tradition, repentance is not considered a good work. That is why we distinguish between repentance and the fruits of repentance (both St. Mark of Ephesus and Dositheos make this distinction). Metanoia is not itself an act of the will but is a change in the manner (the tropos) of the will.

But faith, like repentance, is not an act of the will (in the sense that desire and choice are operations of the natural will), but rather it is reflective of tropos. It is only with a disposition of faith that our use of our natural human will and energy can be salvific.

I do not presume that modern Byzantine theology is equivalent to Latin theology, though maybe I should have been clearer. I did not mean that Catholics teach identical theology to Eastern Orthodox, but that unlike Protestants, Catholics believe that salvation is not decided apart from man’s own actions, but on man working together with God. Without getting in troposes and hypostasises, that is enough to say that salvation depends on works.

If you want to define works as only external acts, fine, but I don’t think that is a sensible definition. Repentance and faith obviously both correspond to human actions so it is bizarre that you would deny this. Even the thief on the cross outwardly manifested his repentance and faith, to say nothing of his internal acts. I think the issue is that repentance and faith have more than one meaning. They may be considered as virtues, which seem to correspond to your use of the word tropos, and they may be considered as acts, which are the fruit of the respective virtues. The Confession of Dositheus clearly treats faith and repentance as acts.

We believe that no one can be saved without faith. By faith we mean the right notion that is in us concerning God and divine things, which, working by love, that is to say, by [keeping] the Divine commandments, justifies us with Christ; and without this [faith] it is impossible to please God. (Decree 9)

A notion is a belief, and belief is an act of the intellect. See also Hebrews 11:6: But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Regarding repentance, it says,

And the souls of those involved in mortal sins, who have not departed in despair but while still living in the body, though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance, have repented — by pouring forth tears, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and finally by showing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbor, and which the Catholic Church has from the beginning rightly called satisfaction — [their souls] depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice benefiting the most; which each offers particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers daily for all alike. Of course, it is understood that we do not know the time of their release. We know and believe that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment, but when we know not. (Decree 18)

In summary, those who have not made satisfaction for the temporal punishment due sin (which it calls here “the fruits of repentance”) but have repented of their sins will endure punishment in Hades (basically Purgatory) until they have made satisfaction. The important thing for us is that repentance (metanoia) is described as an act: “pouring forth tears… kneeling while watching in prayers… afflicting themselves… relieving the poor, and finally… showing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbor.”

And then Orthodoxy disagrees with both, because we cannot accept the decree of Trent that we are justified by a justice which is not God’s own. We do not believe in created grace.

Why you even brought this up is beyond me. I never used the expression created grace, nor does the Council of Trent. In fact, the only place I have seen it used is the Summa Theolgiae. Suffice to say, grace is not there defined as “the uncreated energies of God” so it is disingenuous to say, “we don’t believe in created grace,” as if you mean the same thing. It is perplexing that you are so hung up on that expression when the only people I see using it today are Orthodox apologists.

What the expression “created grace” signifies, however, cannot be objectionably to anyone belonging to orthodoxy. Created grace refers to the state of grace. It is a dogma of the Faith that we are born in a state of sin. After we are justified by the grace of God, we are in a state of grace. The state of grace is opposed to the state of sin because one is life and the other is death. The state of grace did not exist until a point in time, and for that reason it is said to be “created.” It does not mean that the “uncreated energies” of God are created.

 

[fhansen]

I agree to the first, and disagree on the second. Which may also help explain differing positions. We can resist the Spirit, but once saved the Spirit seals us and indwells us. The flesh is always a part of us until we get our glorified bodies. Paul teaches a perpetual wresting match between the two; one opponent doesn’t all of a sudden disappear even when one gets thrown to the mat.

Paul himself bemoaned the current state of his flesh, and called himself, in the present tense, the chiefest of sinners.

None of us are righteous, no not one. Our actual righteousness, which is truly called righteousness not evil deeds, is as filthy rags to God. So we are left in a quandary. Only the truly righteous can get to Heaven, so how do we make it if only God is good? The righteousness of Christ that is imputed to us when we trust Him. God is the only Being that can be righteous enough, and He offers grace and a way to tap into that grace; via faith.

So God made us with an “actual righteousness” that amounts to “filthy rags”? This is where certain Protestant theologies fall apart IMO, or fail to see the whole picture. The reason fallen man’s righteousness is as filthy rags is because he has no righteousness of his own, apart from God, from whom all righteousness flows. And Adam chose to abandon Gods righteousness, effectively turning it into a “foreign righteousness”, clothing himself instead with his own, false righteousness, by doing what’s right in his own eyes. The message of the New Covenant is not, “You can do nothing”, rather the message is, “Apart from Me you can do nothing”. Faith justifies us only because faith reestablishes communion with God, whom man departed from at the Fall.

 

[SteveVH]

Interesting, I didn’t know the RCC taught that. This explains some of our differences because protestants such as I don’t consider the OT saints as being part of the Bride of Christ or the church proper. Everything else you said is agreed; Christ’s death being efficacious for those in Abraham’s Bosom/Paradise, etc…

Heaven itself is described as a wedding feast. This wedding is the union of man with God which can only be brought about through Jesus Christ (who is the union of man with God), regardless of when one lived and died in time. All of those in heaven were saved by Jesus Christ and if they have received eternal life it is an eternal union; a one-flesh relationship, if you will, with God.

I disagree, the image of the sheep fits us really quite well.

Yes, of course the image of sheep fits us well, but the parable of the Good Shepherd focuses on God’s care for us; his constant pursuit of those who are lost. It is very beautiful, but it does not address the sheep’s refusal to heed the Shepherd’s voice. The people in that time and culture new very well what happened to sheep who did not heed the shepherd’s voice. They remained lost.

But I see you describing the idea that if we let Him in and ask Him to stay and He says I’ll never leave you nor forsake you, that He doesn’t mean it, He may walk out again.

I have said nothing of the kind. God is always faithful and always keeps his promises. He will never forsake us. However, as you, yourself have said, he does not force us into salvation. If my child runs away from me have I forsaken him?

Apostasy would be declaring emancipation, as I said, I’m open to that. As you say, God doesn’t disown us. Why? Because it is Jesus’ righteousness that counts, not ours.

And what happens to one who, at a certain moment in life, sincerely accepts Jesus Christ and makes him Lord of their life, and then, years later falls into temptation and serious sin and decides that they wish to remain in that sin and are unrepentant? Is it your position that it matters not because of Jesus’ righteousness?

So you have to be born again, and again, and again, or adopted disowned adopted disowned? I don’t see that. That would be like going from sheep to goat to sheep to goat with your hope being that you die a sheep not a goat, but no guarantee.

I don’t know how many ways there are to say this. God does not disown us. We disown him. He remains faithful. We do not. If we choose to remain apart from him he does not force us to be with him.

It’s a little more complex than that. John says a true regenerate believer cannot sin. Not will not sin, but cannot. How can that be; because again there are two things nailed to the cross with Christ; the Law and Sin. God had to do something so radical because a mere human always falls short when works are involved. Thence comes the heresy of sinning so that grace can abound, and I agree with Paul; God forbid!

Please specify the verse to which you are referring. John also says this:

“If we claim to be without sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.” (1John 1:8-10)

I don’t agree. The idea of Apostasy is very specific.

It is all sin. When we sin we abandon our faith. Apostasy is a very serious sin. But so is murder and adultery and cheating and lying. And all can be forgiven if we repent and ask for God’s forgiveness. We cannot minimize our sins and tell ourselves “well, at least I’m not guilty of apostasy so all is well”. It is why Christ established the sacrament of Reconciliation. We must confess our sins and come to true repentance.

 

[Kliska]

So God made us with an “actual righteousness” that amounts to “filthy rags”? This is where certain Protestant theologies fall apart IMO, or fail to see the whole picture. The reason fallen man’s righteousness is as filthy rags is because he has no righteousness of his own, apart from God, from whom all righteousness flows. And Adam chose to abandon Gods righteousness, effectively turning it into a “foreign righteousness”, clothing himself instead with his own, false righteousness, by doing what’s right in his own eyes. The message of the New Covenant is not, “You can do nothing”, rather the message is, “Apart from Me you can do nothing”. Faith justifies us only because faith reestablishes communion with God, whom man departed from at the Fall.

That’s exactly my point. Mankind apart from God can try to do righteous acts, but the are not truly righteous. That’s why we need the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and why God had to take care of things Himself.

 

[fhansen]

That’s exactly my point. Mankind apart from God can try to do righteous acts, but the are not truly righteous. That’s why we need the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and why God had to take care of things Himself.

The point is that, with God all things are possible, including being righteous in whatever way He created us to be, not merely declared or “imputedly” righteous.

 

[Kliska]

Yes, of course the image of sheep fits us well, but the parable of the Good Shepherd focuses on God’s care for us; his constant pursuit of those who are lost. It is very beautiful, but it does not address the sheep’s refusal to heed the Shepherd’s voice. The people in that time and culture new very well what happened to sheep who did not heed the shepherd’s voice. They remained lost.

I disagree, it paints just a good of picture of a lost sheep, but a lost sheep with a Shepherd who loves her and is perfectly willing to die for her, and did… or maybe that’s just me seeing me where and when Jesus found me, even as a child.

I have said nothing of the kind. God is always faithful and always keeps his promises. He will never forsake us. However, as you, yourself have said, he does not force us into salvation. If my child runs away from me have I forsaken him?

That’s apostasy. The metaphor would be me serving supper late, and burning the hors d’oeuvres and Jesus deciding He’s had enough of waiting and takes off.

And what happens to one who, at a certain moment in life, sincerely accepts Jesus Christ and makes him Lord of their life, and then, years later falls into temptation and serious sin and decides that they wish to remain in that sin and are unrepentant? Is it your position that it matters not because of Jesus’ righteousness?

I believe that that persons works will be tried when they die. All things of wood, hay, stubble will be burned away, all things gold and good shall stay. If all of that’s person’s works are wood, hay and stubble, then it will burn down to the foundation, which is Christ, and no further. In short, yes, Jesus’ righteousness is so vast, and His sacrifice so efficacious that sin itself was nailed to the cross. Once we are baptized (by the Spirit) into Christ’s death there is no condemnation from sinful acts. Now, will we reap the consequences? Absolutely, but that doesn’t include Jesus letting go of you. One of the names of God is The LORD our Righteousness; it isn’t your own righteousness that saves you nor keeps you.

I also firmly believe He can and will kill one of His sheep dead if it be necessary.

I don’t know how many ways there are to say this. God does not disown us. We disown him. He remains faithful. We do not. If we choose to remain apart from him he does not force us to be with him.

That’s apostasy.

“If we claim to be without sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.” (1John 1:8-10)

Absolutely, just as Paul states about the flesh, Paul calls himself the chief of sinners in a present tense. We still have the old man to contend with til death. John goes on to say in 1 John 3: 9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and** he cannot sin**, because he is born of God. Now, we have a conundrum is Paul is saying he is a sinner and that he does things that he doesn’t want to do, but John is saying that we cannot sin, not will not but cannot. So who is right? Both of them are of course. The new man is that new creature in Christ, and is not placed under the law, where the law doesn’t reach, there is no condemnation, and no sin is imputed to that new man.

New man vs. old, we won’t be released from that until we die, and then our flesh will be glorified too when we are resurrected and reunited with our former body.

It is all sin. When we sin we abandon our faith.

That’s where we disagree. If I slip and lie that is not me abandoning my trust in Christ; Who He is and what He has done.

Apostasy is a very serious sin. But so is murder and adultery and cheating and lying. And all can be forgiven if we repent and ask for God’s forgiveness. We cannot minimize our sins and tell ourselves “well, at least I’m not guilty of apostasy so all is well”. It is why Christ established the sacrament of Reconciliation. We must confess our sins and come to true repentance.

And protestants such as I don’t believe in the sacrament of reconciliation, nor that confession to a priest is necessary. All my sin is paid for by Christ and I’m truly set free from it all, for Jesus said “it is finished” ie “paid in full.” This underscores our total and complete need for God as Saviour and Sanctifier. So, yes, all of this has definite effects on our understanding of other aspects of our faiths.

 

[Kliska]

The point is that, with God all things are possible, including being righteous in whatever way He created us to be, not merely declared or “imputedly” righteous.

Only by God Himself. The fruit we produce as Christians is the fruit of the Spirit, not our own.

 

[fhansen]

Only by God Himself. The fruit we produce as Christians is the fruit of the Spirit, not our own.

Yes, it’s not our own anymore than our life is not our own-our existence depends on God. And yet it’s what we were created for during this life.

 

[Kliska]

Yes, it’s not our own anymore than our life is not our own-our existence depends on God. And yet it’s what we were created for during this life.

Amen to that.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I do not presume that modern Byzantine theology is equivalent to Latin theology, though maybe I should have been clearer. I did not mean that Catholics teach identical theology to Eastern Orthodox, but that unlike Protestants, Catholics believe that salvation is not decided apart from man’s own actions, but on man working together with God. Without getting in troposes and hypostasises, that is enough to say that salvation depends on works.

Essentially what you are telling me is that you decline to try to discuss theology on our own terms, which would be fine, if it were not for the fact that you are trying to tell me how I am supposed to read Dositheus.

Regarding repentance, it says,

And the souls of those involved in mortal sins, who have not departed in despair but while still living in the body, though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance, have repented — by pouring forth tears, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and finally by showing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbor, and which the Catholic Church has from the beginning rightly called satisfaction — [their souls] depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice benefiting the most; which each offers particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers daily for all alike. Of course, it is understood that we do not know the time of their release. We know and believe that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment, but when we know not. (Decree 18)

In summary, those who have not made satisfaction for the temporal punishment due sin (which it calls here “the fruits of repentance”) but have repented of their sins will endure punishment in Hades (basically Purgatory) until they have made satisfaction. The important thing for us is that repentance (metanoia) is described as an act: “pouring forth tears… kneeling while watching in prayers… afflicting themselves… relieving the poor, and finally… showing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbor.”

No, that is a bad translation, into which you are reading the presuppositions of Latin theology. Another translation of the confession reads: “And such as though envolved in mortal sins have not departed in despair, but have, while still living in the body, repented, through without bringing forth any fruits of repentance—by pouring forth tears, forsooth, by kneeling while watching in prayers, and by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and in fine by shewing for by their works their love towards God and their neighbour…” Fruits of repentance are the acts associated with repentance (not temporal punishment due for sins, as you argue, for such a thing does not exist in the Greek tradition, as St. Mark of Ephesus pointed out at Florence), as distinguished from repentance, which is the reorienting of the tropos of the will to an inclination towards the Good.

And Hades is not “basically purgatory.” For Purgatory involves a theology of satisfaction whereby God must punish sinners with temporal punishment for their sins, in order to receive due satisfaction from them. You assume here that the Greek term Ἱκανοποίησιν is identical to the Latin idea of satisfaction, but it is not. In the Greek tradition, Ἱκανοποίησιν (or literally a making acceptable) is therapeutic rather than penal in purpose. When Dositheus speaks of souls departed into Hades suffering the punishment due to the sins they have committed, he should be understood to be teaching in accordance of St. Mark of Ephesus that the souls which depart into Hades receive a foretaste of the eternal punishment which may await them. We in fact can see this because were this foretaste of punishment identical with the Latin notion of temporal punishment, then it would have been written by Dositheus that this punishment would be able to accomplish the release of the faithful from Hades (something which would clearly be against the teaching of St. Mark of Ephesus). But Dositheus does not write this, rather writing that through the prayers of the faithful, and the supreme Goodness of God, the departed faithful can be released from this dreadful state.

And were this not enough, the Patriarch, Parthenius of Constantinople in his rebuttal to Cyril Lukaris’ 18th article in his letter to the Synod of Jassy, writes, “And last of all, under the pretext, forsooth, of overthrowing [the notion of] the Purgatorial fire, he endeavoureth to do away with the Memorials of the Departed, which are sanctioned by us…,” which shows that what the Greeks found objectionable about Cyril Lukaris’ confession was not his attempt to overthrow the notion of Purgatorial fire, but rather his war against the practice of prayer for the dead, a practice which Dositheus defends not by affirming the Latin doctrine of Purgatory, but by using the doctrines of the Greek East on the fate of souls in Hades, as taught by figures like St. Mark of Ephesus.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Why you even brought this up is beyond me. I never used the expression created grace, nor does the Council of Trent. In fact, the only place I have seen it used is the Summa Theolgiae. Suffice to say, grace is not there defined as “the uncreated energies of God” so it is disingenuous to say, “we don’t believe in created grace,” as if you mean the same thing. It is perplexing that you are so hung up on that expression when the only people I see using it today are Orthodox apologists.

What the expression “created grace” signifies, however, cannot be objectionably to anyone belonging to orthodoxy. Created grace refers to the state of grace. It is a dogma of the Faith that we are born in a state of sin. After we are justified by the grace of God, we are in a state of grace. The state of grace is opposed to the state of sin because one is life and the other is death. The state of grace did not exist until a point in time, and for that reason it is said to be “created.” It does not mean that the “uncreated energies” of God are created.

The Council of Trent in the decree on Justification teaches that, “the single formal cause [of justification] is the justice of God, not that by which He Himself is just, but that by which He makes us just.” The Orthodox cannot agree with this statement, because it is participation in uncreated justice which makes man justified.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The Council of Trent in the decree on Justification teaches that, “the single formal cause [of justification] is the justice of God, not that by which He Himself is just, but that by which He makes us just.” The Orthodox cannot agree with this statement, because it is participation in uncreated justice which makes man justified.

Link for the quote on Trent please.

 

[fhansen]

Link for the quote on Trent please.

It’s from session 6, chapter 7. It doesn’t mean to say that the justice doesn’t come from God, rather that His justice is authentically communicated by His pouring forth His love (charity) in us, as the chapter in question goes on to say.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It’s from session 6, chapter 7. It doesn’t mean to say that the justice doesn’t come from God, rather that His justice is authentically communicated by His pouring forth His love (charity) in us, as the chapter in question goes on to say.

Thanks, but I am eager to see his linked reference.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Thanks, but I am eager to see his linked reference.

CHAPTER VII.
What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.

This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.

Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified; lastly, the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one’s proper disposition and co-operation. For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body. For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision, availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by charity. This faith, Catechumen’s beg of the Church-agreeably to a tradition of the apostles-previously to the sacrament of Baptism; when they beg for the faith which bestows life everlasting, which, without hope and charity, faith cannot bestow: whence also do they immediately hear that word of Christ; If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Wherefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are bidden, immediately on being born again, to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe given them through Jesus Christ in lieu of that which Adam, by his disobedience, lost for himself and for us, that so they may bear it before the judgment-seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may have life everlasting.
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

The Council of Trent in the decree on Justification teaches that, “the single formal cause [of justification] is the justice of God, not that by which He Himself is just, but that by which He makes us just.” The Orthodox cannot agree with this statement, because it is participation in uncreated justice which makes man justified.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of Trent here. The statement here is directed against a novel Protestant understanding. Protestants believe that justification consists in a solely forensic imputation of Christ’s own personal righteousness to the believer. There is nothing about the Christian that is righteous is God’s eyes. For this reason, the Christian’s righteousness is an “alien righteousness.” On the contrary, Catholics believe that there is a real change in the believer which is a proper and necessary part of justification, and it is on account of this change that we are imputed just. Furthermore, in scholastic terminology, justice is a “quality” inhering in its subject, so justice makes a thing just as whiteness makes a thing white. That’s why Trent specifies that formal cause (i.e. as whiteness causes a thing to be white) of justification is the “justice by which he makes us just” as opposed to “justice by which He Himself is just.” God is separate from his creature so to say that the creature is just in any ontological sense requires us to ascribe justice to the creature in a formal sense. There is no room for a third Orthodox position. This is an either-matter.

Now, if you want to say that man’s justice is a “participation in the uncreated justice,” that is fine as long as you give it an orthodox meaning. The excerpt you posted does not define what justice is. Nevertheless, if would have posted the rest of the sentence, you would see that the chapter does describe something about what justice is, if not a precise definition. It does not use the phrase “participation in the uncreated energies of God,” but I do not think it can be reproved on these grounds, since, as far as I know, this language is foreign to the Latin fathers. Instead you will see Latin writers call (sanctifying) grace a participation in the Divine Nature (e.g. ST Ia-IIae, q. 110, a.3) in reference to 2 Peter 1:4.

Again, I think you are also failing to distinguish between the multiple significances of a word. As before, there can be justice as an act, i.e. a just act. There can also be justice as a virtue, i.e. that within us which disposes us to act justly. In this particular case, what we have in mind is the “justice by which he makes us just,” or the grounds on which we are imputed just in God’s sight. In the words of St. Thomas, “justice is so-called inasmuch as it implies a certain rectitude of order in the interior disposition of a man, in so far as what is highest in man is subject to God, and the inferior powers of the soul are subject to the superior” (I-II, 113, 1). This corresponds not to the virtue of justice, but to what is called sanctifying grace, which is a participation in the Divine nature. Grace is distinct from the virtue of justice as a virtue is distinct from the nature to whose end virtue disposes its subject to act. Rather, justice considered as a virtue disposes man to act according to grace.