Grace and Justification

[ltwin]

Thanks for joining in, and thanks for the response.

Any chance you would be able to help me clarify the original question on the 3 different meanings of Justification?

Thanks again

Wish I could help, but I don’t know what he meant. Hollis Gause, a Wesleyan-Pentecostal theologian, writes in Living in the Spirit: The Way of Salvation the following about justification:

Justification is a judicial act of God; that is, it occurs in an act of divine judgment. It is an act of God’s grace in which God remits the sins of the believer and declares him/her to be righteous before God. The sole basis for this declaration of forgiveness and transmission of righteousness is the obedience of Christ, the active obedience in which He fulfilled all righteousness and the passive righteousness in which He was crucified for us, shedding His blood for a covering (i.e. an atonement) for us. This righteousness is transferred to the believer, giving her/him a standing before God clothed in righteousness. This declaration frees the believer from judgment and gives the benefits of Christ’s full merit.

This act, on God’s part, is judicial in nature. By justification God pardons the believer even though the past life is one of sinfulness. God further transforms the believer so that he/she becomes a partaker of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1.4), and the love of God is shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5.5).

The only instrument for receiving this gift of divine grace is faith in Jesus Christ. Its Agents are the word and Spirit of God.

Gause, R. Hollis (2010). Living in the Spirit: The Way of Salvation (Kindle Locations 251-260). CPT Press. Kindle Edition.​

On sanctification, Gause writes:

Sanctification is an act of divine grace, the agents of which are the Word and Spirit of God. The basis for this provision and experience is the blood of Christ’s atonement whereby the body of sin is crucified and all unrighteousness is purged from the heart of the regenerate, making her/him free from the law of sin and death. By this experience the graces which are implanted in the prior experience of regeneration are released to more fruitful growth in and by the Holy Spirit.

Such a definition of the experience of sanctification is incomplete unless it also addresses itself to the pursuit of holiness. The pursuit of holiness is the normal manner of life for the believer; that is, this life is characterized by freedom from sinning, by the denial of lust of the flesh, lust of the eye and pride of life and by a cultivation of the fruit of the Spirit.

(Kindle Locations 279-285)​

Justification and sanctification are part of a “way of salvation” or an “order of salvation.” This order includes repentance, justification, adoption, regeneration, sanctification, and glorification. The first 4 can be classed as “initial experiences” of salvation and the last 2 can be described as “subsequent” aspects of salvation.

 

[littlestsouls2]

Thanks for the link. It was a little over my head on the first read. I will have to go through it again as I learn.

From what I read, was the Evangelical backwards or just didn’t understand the Catholic side?

No worries.

I didn’t quite understand his point, tbh, so I can’t say. But it is not uncommon for many people of good-will to misunderstand Catholic teaching.

From your link Father Hardon states:
Kinds. How many kinds of grace are there? The answer depends on what we mean by “kinds.” But we may mention now graces that are external to us (to our minds, wills, souls) and graces that are internal; grace that is uncreated and grace that is created; grace that is habitual and grace that is actual (a transient, “come-and-go aid)

Do Protestants “go on all day” about the same Grace Father is presenting or do you think he meant Catholics “go on all day”?

Not too sure.

If more were aware of Church teaching, there would be fewer fruitless debates over what the Church ostensibly teaches concerning justification and salvation. Here is a useful dogma:

“If anyone shall say that the will of man, moved and aroused by God, does not cooperate at all in assenting to God calling and arousing by which it might prepare itself to obtain the grace of justification, and that neither could it dissent if it willed, but that like a lifeless thing it does not act at all but is merely passive: Let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent)

 

[MT1926]

Justification is a judicial act of God; that is, it occurs in an act of divine judgment.

Thanks for the reply. I’m good with this.

It is an act of God’s grace in which God remits the sins of the believer and declares him/her to be righteous before God.

I think the author should have added the words “or retain” to give the reader the full meaning of an act of divine judgement.

The sole basis for this declaration of forgiveness and transmission of righteousness is the obedience of Christ, the active obedience in which He fulfilled all righteousness and the passive righteousness in which He was crucified for us, shedding His blood for a covering (i.e. an atonement) for us. This righteousness is transferred to the believer, giving her/him a standing before God clothed in righteousness. This declaration frees the believer from judgment and gives the benefits of Christ’s full merit.

Not having read the book I am going to give the author the benefit of the doubt that he has already defined what these terms mean. However, if he has not I think the author is misleading his audience by using this opportunity to push his Faith Alone agenda instead of truly getting to the root of God’s Justification…

This act, on God’s part, is judicial in nature. By justification God pardons the believer even though the past life is one of sinfulness. God further transforms the believer so that he/she becomes a partaker of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1.4), and the love of God is shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5.5).

Once again the author is misrepresenting the true definition of judicial. There is no judgement if the only possible outcome is a pardon.

The only instrument for receiving this gift of divine grace is faith in Jesus Christ. Its Agents are the word and Spirit of God.

Once again I am going to give the author the benefit of the doubt that he has already defined what faith means. Because from what was presented here I would assume he means to have faith means to believe in the obedience of Christ. But I am not sure if he is meaning we are to be obedient. From what he writes it appears we just need to believe in Christs obedience by his death on the cross. If it is the former I would like to know his definition of our obidience. If it is the later I am pretty sure the bible rejects this in James 2:19 - You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder.

Also, the author outright states “only instrument”? I thought grace was a free gift that we could not earn?

Sanctification is an act of divine grace, the agents of which are the Word and Spirit of God. The basis for this provision and experience is the blood of Christ’s atonement whereby the body of sin is crucified and all unrighteousness is purged from the heart of the regenerate, making her/him free from the law of sin and death. By this experience the graces which are implanted in the prior experience of regeneration are released to more fruitful growth in and by the Holy Spirit.

Don’t necessarily disagree with anything here just not sure where he is going with this when he says “free from the law of sin and death” I am guessing by fruitful growth he means in our ability to do good works.

Such a definition of the experience of sanctification is incomplete unless it also addresses itself to the pursuit of holiness. The pursuit of holiness is the normal manner of life for the believer; that is, this life is characterized by freedom from sinning, by the denial of lust of the flesh, lust of the eye and pride of life and by a cultivation of the fruit of the Spirit.

Once again not real sure what he means by freedom from sinning, does he mean we can’t sin or we shouldn’t sin?

Justification and sanctification are part of a “way of salvation” or an “order of salvation.” This order includes repentance, justification, adoption, regeneration, sanctification, and glorification. The first 4 can be classed as “initial experiences” of salvation and the last 2 can be described as “subsequent” aspects of salvation.

I was all good with this until the last sentence. Not sure where I stand on this, especially repentance being an initial experience. Makes it sound like you only have to repent once, I don’t think I can accept that statement. I think I will need to do a little more research on this.

Thanks for the dialogue. I in no way mean any of my remarks towards you so I hope you do not take offense to anything I said. I am still in the learning stages of my Faith journey and am learning from the start that there is a lot of bias out there (on all sides of the argument), so when I read anything like this my eye tends to see the authors desire to prove a point instead of teach a believer, when they use vague words that you know have different meanings in different contexts.

Thanks again

 

[MT1926]

If more were aware of Church teaching, there would be fewer fruitless debates over what the Church ostensibly teaches concerning justification and salvation. Here is a useful dogma:

“If anyone shall say that the will of man, moved and aroused by God, does not cooperate at all in assenting to God calling and arousing by which it might prepare itself to obtain the grace of justification, and that neither could it dissent if it willed, but that like a lifeless thing it does not act at all but is merely passive: Let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent)

Thanks for the response. This response brought a huge smile to my face.

I guy threw this exact cannon in my face last week as his proof that the Pope changed that the Apostles taught Faith Alone. I think he was trying to make a Point that Canon 11 somehow states that grace is not a free gift from God. Not sure he never responded to my reply. I think I ticked him off. I seem to be doing that a lot lately. I guess I am like a 6 year old and ask to many questions.

Here is the response I gave him maybe you could let me know if I am understanding these councils correctly:

Once again I am not into the church councils yet but from what I read of the point you are trying to make is they are direct opposites.

Ok what I get from the council of Orange states Grace is a gift from God and we need to admit it is a free gift.

Canon 4 to me seems to say the same thing but is further defined, I am guess because of the predestination mindset. Once again I am not scholarly on this but from what I understand there is a group that believes in predestination. You are either predestined to heaven or damned to hell on the day you are conceived. Therefore Canon 4 brings on further definition to let these people know that God’s grace is a free gift but it is a gift that can be rejected because God does not force his Grace upon us. He has given us free will to refuse it.

Canon 11 is a little less clear but I will give it a shot. Ok this one speaks to me about the once saved always saved crowd. You know the group that says Jesus’ death on the cross forgave my sins… past, present and future. The actual phrase used at me was there is nothing I can do good (works) or Bad (sin) that would make me lose my salvation which is a free gift from Jesus, once and for all. I don’t think canon 11 changes anything. It seems to further define the Catholic interpretation of certain verses. Like…by my works I will show you my faith. Faith without works is dead, etc…

I don’t see how either of these cannons changes the original teaching about Faith and Morals. I see them as further defining them. In my opinion if the predestination crowd or the once saved always saved crowd didn’t start questioning the Catholic church neither of these canons would have needed to be written.

Thanks for your help.

 

[ltwin]

I think the author should have added the words “or retain” to give the reader the full meaning of an act of divine judgement.

If God retains one’s sins, it is still a judicial act and an act of divine judgment, but the sinner is not justified. Without forgiveness of sins, justification does not occur. Adding “or retain” would essentially be saying that a person can be justified and at the same time not receive forgiveness, which of course makes no sense.

Not having read the book I am going to give the author the benefit of the doubt that he has already defined what these terms mean. However, if he has not I think the author is misleading his audience by using this opportunity to push his Faith Alone agenda instead of truly getting to the root of God’s Justification…

He defines “obedience of Christ” in that paragraph: “the active obedience in which He fulfilled all righteousness and the passive righteousness in which He was crucified for us, shedding His blood for a covering (i.e. an atonement) for us.” So, the obedience of Christ is his perfect fulfillment of the law and his sinless life.

A “believer” is someone who has faith in Christ. He does not mean someone who merely gives mental assent to propositional truth, but someone who has been convicted of his sin by the Holy Spirit and has responded with repentance. Gause states:

All the benefits of divine grace are received by faith. This is true to the character of promise from God, because promise by nature is a claim of faith. This is the unifying thread through all the experiences of grace. Living in grace is the life of faith: ‘The manner in which the just live is by believing’ (Hab. 2.4).[3] Life in the Holy Spirit is a life of faith, for it is in faith that believers seek and cultivate the Spirit’s indwelling and filling.

(Kindle Locations 319-324)​

Once again the author is misrepresenting the true definition of judicial. There is no judgement if the only possible outcome is a pardon.

He isn’t misrepresenting anything. Justification involves pardon; it does not involve retention of sin. To be justified is to be blameless. You can’t be that if God retains sin. God does retain sin absent repentance, but when that happens the individual is not justified. The author is defining justification, so his focus is on justification. He is not denying that God retains sins of those without repentance, but once again, he is speaking of justification.

Later on, he writes on the justice of God writing, “. . .God can by no means clear the guilty except in Christ. He will punish evil in accordance with His nature of righteousness, holiness and love” (Kindle Locations 469-470).

Once again I am going to give the author the benefit of the doubt that he has already defined what faith means. Because from what was presented here I would assume he means to have faith means to believe in the obedience of Christ. But I am not sure if he is meaning we are to be obedient. From what he writes it appears we just need to believe in Christs obedience by his death on the cross. If it is the former I would like to know his definition of our obidience. If it is the later I am pretty sure the bible rejects this in James 2:19 - You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder.

Gause defines repentance, one of the aspects of salvation, as follows:

Repentance is a complete reversal of life. As the mind, heart and will had been committed to disobedience, they are now committed to obedience. This is a purposing of heart, mind and will to forsake sin in every aspect and to follow God as we once followed satan.

(Kindle Locations 646-648)​

Also, the author outright states “only instrument”? I thought grace was a free gift that we could not earn?

We can’t earn it, and it is a free gift. Gause uses the term “instrument” but maybe a better word is “vehicle” or “conduit.” We are saved by grace, but this grace is communicated to us by faith. In the words of Ephesians 2:8, “For by grace are ye saved through faith.”

 

[ltwin]

Don’t necessarily disagree with anything here just not sure where he is going with this when he says “free from the law of sin and death”

He means that we are made free from what Paul called “the wages of sin.” Instead, we can enjoy eternal life in Christ.

Once again not real sure what he means by freedom from sinning, does he mean we can’t sin or we shouldn’t sin?

He means that through faith God gives grace to the believer to forsake sin and follow Christ. He does not mean “sinless perfection.” Christians will face temptation and even give in to temptation at times, but the life of a Christian should be one characterized by holiness rather than sinfulness.

I was all good with this until the last sentence. Not sure where I stand on this, especially repentance being an initial experience. Makes it sound like you only have to repent once, I don’t think I can accept that statement. I think I will need to do a little more research on this.

Repentance is central to being a Christian. Initial repentance is what makes one a Christian; the moment you repent is the moment Pentecostals mark one as becoming a Christian.

But we also see repentance as an ongoing thing. Chapter 2 of Living in the Spirit is called “Living a Penitential Life,” and in it, Gause writes:

We have emphasized initial repentance; by that term we mean the turning around of our lives when we were first convicted of sin, and turned to Jesus Christ. Now we emphasize continual repentance that must be characteristic of life continually lived in fulfilling the divine call to holiness. This is living penitentially. The commitments made upon our first turning to the Lord must be followed through and become the manner in which one lives in covenant with God and the rest of the body of Christ.

(Kindle Locations 713-716)​

 

[littlestsouls2]

Thanks for the response. This response brought a huge smile to my face.

I guy threw this exact cannon in my face last week as his proof that the Pope changed that the Apostles taught Faith Alone. I think he was trying to make a Point that Canon 11 somehow states that grace is not a free gift from God. Not sure he never responded to my reply. I think I ticked him off. I seem to be doing that a lot lately. I guess I am like a 6 year old and ask to many questions.

Better to ask questions than not. Grace is unmerited; the Church teaches this in a hundred different ways.

… Ok what I get from the council of Orange states Grace is a gift from God and we need to admit it is a free gift.

Canon 4 to me seems to say the same thing but is further defined, I am guess because of the predestination mindset. Once again I am not scholarly on this but from what I understand there is a group that believes in predestination. You are either predestined to heaven or damned to hell on the day you are conceived. Therefore Canon 4 brings on further definition to let these people know that God’s grace is a free gift but it is a gift that can be rejected because God does not force his Grace upon us. He has given us free will to refuse it.

True - grace is freely given.

Go antecedently wills that all be saved, but His consequent Will decrees/permits the damnation of those who die in mortal sin. The doctrine of mortal sin implies that sin is not merely the absence of grace; it is a refusal of grace, otherwise we would not be culpable. There is a great mystery at work here, but the Church’s teaching is quite clear: we will be saved if we cooperate with God’s grace.

Canon 11 is a little less clear but I will give it a shot. Ok this one speaks to me about the once saved always saved crowd. You know the group that says Jesus’ death on the cross forgave my sins… past, present and future. The actual phrase used at me was there is nothing I can do good (works) or Bad (sin) that would make me lose my salvation which is a free gift from Jesus, once and for all. I don’t think canon 11 changes anything. It seems to further define the Catholic interpretation of certain verses. Like…by my works I will show you my faith. Faith without works is dead, etc…

Canon 11 basically says that we are not saved without charity. This is in accordance with many Scriptures e.g. ‘Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ (Mt. 7:21)

There are countless others.

I don’t see how either of these cannons changes the original teaching about Faith and Morals. I see them as further defining them. In my opinion if the predestination crowd or the once saved always saved crowd didn’t start questioning the Catholic church neither of these canons would have needed to be written.

I agree on both counts.

Here is a great quote from St. Alphonsus:

“In the year 415, a council of fourteen bishops was held in Diospolis, a city of Palestine; and here Pelagius, as Cardinal Baronius tells us, induced the bishops to agree to the following propositions, all Catholic, indeed, and opposed to the errors promulgated by him and Celestius: First: Adam would not have died had he not sinned… Sixth: God gives us assistance to do good, according to St. Paul (I. Tim. vi, 17). Seventh: It is God that gives us grace to do every good work, and this grace is not given to us according to
our merits. Eighth: Grace comes to us, given gratuitously by God, according to his mercy. Ninth: The children of God are those who daily say, “forgive us our sins,” which we could not say if we were entirely without sin. Tenth: Free-will exists, but it must be assisted by Divine help. Eleventh: The victory over temptations does not come from our own will, but from the grace of God. Twelfth: The pardon of sins is not given according to the merits of those who ask it, but according to the Divine Mercy.” (‘The History of Heresies and Their Refutation’)

Calvinism is blasphemous and OSAS theology is a tragic error.

Thanks for your help.

No worries!

Pax.