Grace: Protestant vs Catholic understanding

[jfallaw]

Philip Yancey wrote What’s So Amazing About Grace?.

Along with C.S. Lewis, Dr. James Dobson, and Charles Colson, this is one non-Catholic (AKA Protestant) author that Catholics should get to know if they have time.

He’s been around for several decades, so he’s not some wunderkind in the evangelical world. He used to write for Campus Life magazine (teen/collegiate). I liked him back then, too. He could always be counted on to dig deep.

He wrote a wonderful book called Soul Survivor–How My Faith Survived the Church. This book summarizes the lives of about two dozen people who have influenced his faith positively, and several of the people are Catholic (e.g., Chesterton). I HIGHLY recommend this book–it was one of the books that helped me make the decision to become Catholic.

This man is very “Catholic-respectful.” Great “bridge” author (especially the book I mentioned) to give to a non-Catholic (AKA Protestant) friend who is questioning/criticizing your Catholicism.

I picked up “What’s So Amazing About Grace” from a friend, and loved it. Even though he’s a protestant, he doesn’t spare them. I was a protestant when I read the book, and it made me realize that I had a big problem with the protestant mindset. I was unfulfilled.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I picked up “What’s So Amazing About Grace” from a friend, and loved it. Even though he’s a protestant, he doesn’t spare them. I was a protestant when I read the book, and it made me realize that I had a big problem with the protestant mindset. I was unfulfilled.

Could you point out some significant points he made…you say he was a protestant but “doesnt spare them”??

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I came upon an interesting quote in scripture the other day:
Jesus said: I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. -Jn 5:42
What struck me about this was what the Lutheran Book of Concord says, the same quote I quoted in post 1 of this thread:
we reject and condemn all the following errors:

**…actually being made righteous before God, because of love infused by the Holy Ghost
**I am not saying Protestants dont have the love of God in them, but that is almost what their own theology is saying.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I am not saying Protestants dont have the love of God in them, but that is almost what their own theology is saying.

“Their own theology”?
Do you think that the Lutheran Book of Concord is representative of Protestant Theology? Be careful how broad a brush you use, please.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

“Their own theology”?
Do you think that the Lutheran Book of Concord is representative of Protestant Theology? Be careful how broad a brush you use, please.

I think it is representative of Protestant theology to a degree (it was one of the first to lay down issues such as imputation and Faith Alone), but you are right it was a broad brush.

My point is those who hold to an imputed view must come to similar conclusions because if infused grace is introduced then imputed means nothing.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

 

[Angainor]

Catholics see the Protestant understanding of Justification to be an abomination because God is considering something other than what it TRULY is. It is like slapping a name tag on someone that says “righteous” knowing all along the person is actually not righteous.

The Lutheran confession says specifically that the justified are “actually made righteous”.

I won’t try to comment on your banking analogy. I will tell you a Lutheran one.

A sinner is unclean. He is unclean down to his soul. Is uncleanliness oozes out from within out of the man’s soul through the very pores in his skin until he is covered from head to toe with sinful ooze. By the Roman Catholic model of justification, the ooze that has accumulated on the outside is washed away in Baptism. Because the soul is still sinful, the ooze continues to ooze up through the pores until he is dirty again and has to go to confession to get the ooze removed once again.

This model is what Lutherans consider an error when we say “the words justify and to be justified are not to signify declaring or being declared free from sins, and obtaining the forgiveness of sins”.

Think of actual wrongdoings as a symptom of original sin. The Roman Catholic model of justification only treats the symptom.

Lutherans know that justification makes a person actually righteous. It is because St. Paul is actually righteous that he is able to write, “Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.”

St. Paul himself was made righteous (it is no longer I who sin), but his sinful nature (the sin that dwells within him) remains until his nature too is remade righteous at the resurrection.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The Lutheran confession says specifically that the justified are “actually made righteous”.

Actually it condemns that explicitly: “**we reject and condemn all the following errors … **actually being made righteous”

A sinner is unclean. He is unclean down to his soul. Is uncleanliness oozes out from within out of the man’s soul through the very pores in his skin until he is covered from head to toe with sinful ooze.

By the Roman Catholic model of justification, the ooze that has accumulated on the outside is washed away in Baptism. Because the soul is still sinful, the ooze continues to ooze up through the pores until he is dirty again and has to go to confession to get the ooze removed once again.

Totally incorrect regarding the Catholic position. Further, I would say your ooze factory model is wrong Biblically, though you do accept it, because you cant stop the ooze and you are filthy to the core unable to clean it

This model is what Lutherans consider an error when we say “the words justify and to be justified are not to signify declaring or being declared free from sins, and obtaining the forgiveness of sins”.

I dont really buy this for a few reasons, especially considering it totally misrepresents the Catholic position.

Think of actual wrongdoings as a symptom of original sin. The Roman Catholic model of justification only treats the symptom.

The effects of original sin are not sin themselves, feeling pain, dying, and being tempted to sin are effects but not sin. These need not be removed to have a righteous soul (eg 1 Cor 6:11; Titus 3:4-7).

Lutherans know that justification makes a person actually righteous. It is because St. Paul is actually righteous that he is able to write, “Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.”

No you reject the idea of actually being made righteous, including the infusion of the virtues (eg love) which the Book of Concord explicitly states.

St. Paul himself was made righteous (it is no longer I who sin), but his sinful nature (the sin that dwells within him) remains until his nature too is remade righteous at the resurrection.

He cannot actually be made righteous if the ooze factory of filth is still there. Catholics understand Romans 7 to be talking about concupiscence, that is the knowledge of sin and temptation, but not sin itself. In fact older translations like the KJV use the term in places like Rom 7:8 “But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.”

 

[Angainor]

Actually it condemns that explicitly: “**we reject and condemn all the following errors … **actually being made righteous”

Learn something new every day. That was an awkward triple-negative. Here is a translation that is a little better:We reject and condemn the following errors…

Where the righteousness of faith is spoken of in the sayings of the prophets and apostles, the words justify and to be justified are not to mean “declaring or being declared free from sins,” and “obtaining the forgiveness of sins.” But they actually mean “being made righteous before God, because of love infused by the Holy Spirit, virtues and the works following them.”
Sincere thanks on the correction.

 

[Angainor]

The effects of original sin are not sin themselves, feeling pain, dying, and being tempted to sin are effects but not sin. These need not be removed to have a righteous soul (eg 1 Cor 6:11; Titus 3:4-7).

Let us look at 1 Cor 6.
9Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
It says “the greedy” will not inherit the kingdom of God. “The greedy” possess an excessive desire for wealth. Simply possessing this desire disqualifies one from the kingdom of God.

Is an “adulterer” someone who has a tendency to commit adultery? I think so. If so, than it is the tendency that disqualifies. The text could have easily said “those who have committed adultery” will not inherit the kingdom of God. Instead it said “adulterers” will not. Besides, we are told in Matthew 5:28 “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

What is “lustful intent”? By the time someone has lustful intent, he has already committed adultery.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Let us look at 1 Cor 6.9Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
It says “the greedy” will not inherit the kingdom of God. “The greedy” possess an excessive desire for wealth. Simply possessing this desire disqualifies one from the kingdom of God. [1]

Is an “adulterer” someone who has a tendency to commit adultery? [2] I think so. If so, than it is the tendency that disqualifies. The text could have easily said “those who have committed adultery” will not inherit the kingdom of God. Instead it said “adulterers” will not. Besides, we are told in Matthew 5:28 “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” [3]

What is “lustful intent”? By the time someone has lustful intent, he has already committed adultery.

[1] There is such a thing as greed and it can get to a point where it is mortal sin.

[2] An adulterer HAS committed adultery, not just the tendency or urge. It is only a sin if you give into the temptation.

[3] What is your point? Jesus is pointing out the plain truth, turning a person into an object of lust can be grave sin.

You need to separate the temptation from the ACT itself, being tempted isnt a sin, infact it is part of the struggle we are in to overcome it, and it is not always easy.

 

[Mike_Brick]

Is an “adulterer” someone who has a tendency to commit adultery? I think so. If so, than it is the tendency that disqualifies. The text could have easily said “those who have committed adultery” will not inherit the kingdom of God. Instead it said “adulterers” will not. Besides, we are told in Matthew 5:28 “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

What is “lustful intent”? By the time someone has lustful intent, he has already committed adultery.

With all due respect, you are beginning to sound like our past president mincing the words but missing the point. An adulterer is one who commits the sin of adultery, whether in the heart, in the flesh or both. It is not one who has been tempted, even often, but who has resisted the temptation, never actually committed the sin, whether in the heart, in the flesh or both. The Greedy are those who act that way, same for other sins. And the scripture is very clear that those who comit those sins, whether in the heart, in the flesh or both and do not seek God’s forgiveness, will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Having faith in Christ, and living out that faith does not prevent the believer from committing sinful acts or forgive him in advance of the sin, but God’s grace enables the believer to avoid the sin. That’s your rightous person! As Jesus Himself often said, “Go and sin no more”.

Peace

 

[Angainor]

Here is an rough example describing how Justification takes place with Protestants and Catholics:
Lets pretend God is an accountant and He is Managing a bank. Man is a member of that bank, but due to some poor decisions on their ancestors’ part, each man inherits a personal account that is in astronomical debt. In order to be an good citizen you must somehow settle this debt with the Manager. Then one day a Billionaire named Jesus comes to town and out of the kindness of His heart is willing to settle any debts, as long as the person asks politely.

Now, here is how a Protestant would describe getting out of debt (Justification) according to the above example. The Billionaire would have the Manager consider the Billionaire’s account instead of the debtor’s account (Imputed Grace), and on that basis consider the debtor “debt free” (though his own account is still in debt).
A Catholic would reject that notion on the simple fact that the debtor is STILL in debt and thus cannot rightly be considered “debt free”. Rather, with the Catholic understanding the Billionaire’s funds would be applied directly to the debtor’s account (Infused Grace), making the debtor truly debt free, at which point the Manager recognizes the now debt-free customer for what he is, debt-free.

Instead of making up your own parable God as an accountant, lets see what the bible says.

The Lord’s Prayer:forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
How would we go about forgiving our debtors? Wouldn’t we just white-out the ledger, telling the debtor the debt is no longer due? This is how Jesus tells us to ask the Father to forgive our debts."Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt.
Matthew 18:23-27
The kingdom of heaven is like a king who simply released the debtor and forgave him the debt, and not imposing the consequences of the debt.“A certain moneylender had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?” Simon answered, “The one, I suppose, for whom he cancelled the larger debt.” … Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much…And he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven…Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”
from Luke 7:41-50
Forgiven sins are like cancelled debt. Forgiven sins save. Go in peace.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Instead of making up your own parable God as an accountant, lets see what the bible says.

Im my opinion we cant just go to Scripture in this case because the Protestant understanding (imputation) simply isnt there.

The Lord’s Prayer:forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
How would we go about forgiving our debtors? Wouldn’t we just white-out the ledger, telling the debtor the debt is no longer due? This is how Jesus tells us to ask the Father to forgive our debts.

But notice, this isnt IMPUTATION, nowhere is the Father looking at Jesus instead of you. This is plainly Catholic, our sins are between US and God, nothing is hidden from His sight, God considers our OWN accounts, we are forgiven when he clears our account and must repent when we fall into sin in the future. YOU are righteous when your sins are forgiven, and you become unrighteous when you fall into sin, thus we must pray “forgive us our trespasses” to become righteous again. This flies in the face of imputation.

"Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt.
Matthew 18:23-27
The kingdom of heaven is like a king who simply released the debtor and forgave him the debt, and not imposing the consequences of the debt.

Notice again, it is his OWN account that was forgiven making him truly righteous (debt free) in the king’s sight. Notice also how this man, through sin, became unrighteous again. Nowhere did he plead for someone like Jesus to step in and take the punishment for him or anything similar.

“A certain moneylender had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?” Simon answered, “The one, I suppose, for whom he cancelled the larger debt.” … Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much…And he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven…Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”
from Luke 7:41-50
Forgiven sins are like cancelled debt. Forgiven sins save. Go in peace.

Again, this is infused, it is between the man’s own actual account and God, nowhere does a third party step in and get you off the hook the way imputation does.

The Bible simply doesnt teach imputation, and thus it doesnt teach justification by faith alone.

 

[Angainor]

Im my opinion we cant just go to Scripture in this case because the Protestant understanding (imputation) simply isnt there.

But notice, this isnt IMPUTATION, nowhere is the Father looking at Jesus instead of you. This is plainly Catholic, our sins are between US and God, nothing is hidden from His sight, God considers our OWN accounts, we are forgiven when he clears our account and must repent when we fall into sin in the future. YOU are righteous when your sins are forgiven, and you become unrighteous when you fall into sin, thus we must pray “forgive us our trespasses” to become righteous again. This flies in the face of imputation.

Notice again, it is his OWN account that was forgiven making him truly righteous (debt free) in the king’s sight. Notice also how this man, through sin, became unrighteous again. Nowhere did he plead for someone like Jesus to step in and take the punishment for him or anything similar.

Again, this is infused, it is between the man’s own actual account and God, nowhere does a third party step in and get you off the hook the way imputation does.

I was countering your idea that forgiven sins are like a rich man (your third party) comes along and settles the account of the debtor. In actual biblical accounts the debtor simply has his debts cancelled.

The Bible simply doesnt teach imputation, and thus it doesnt teach justification by faith alone.

If you want a biblical passage of imputation, this is my favorite:
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.
Romans 5:19

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I was countering your idea that forgiven sins are like a rich man (your third party) comes along and settles the account of the debtor. In actual biblical accounts the debtor simply has his debts cancelled.

And with his debts canceled he appears in the sight of the Owner as a debt-free (righteous) individual.

If you want a biblical passage of imputation, this is my favorite: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.
Romans 5:19

You have got to be kidding me…what does “will be MADE RIGHTEOUS” mean to you? Especially considering how the first half you were REALLY a sinner. The plain understanding is the being made righteous is to directly counter the real effect of being made sinner. This is in fact a most powerful passage for infused.

 

[SyCarl]

Then in another passage he says: “To him that works is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that works not, but believes in Him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describes the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputes righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputes no sin.” Romans 4:4 8 And then after no long interval he observes: “Now, it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe in Him that raised up Jesus Christ our Lord from the dead; who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.”-Augustine (On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants, Book 1 Chapter 43)

newadvent.org/fathers/15011.htm

 

[Angainor]

Angainor:

If you want a biblical passage of imputation, this is my favorite: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.
Romans 5:19

You have got to be kidding me…what does “will be MADE RIGHTEOUS” mean to you? Especially considering how the first half you were REALLY a sinner. The plain understanding is the being made righteous is to directly counter the real effect of being made sinner. This is in fact a most powerful passage for infused.

What does made righteous mean to me? You said it. Being made righteous is being made debt-free.

And with his debts canceled he appears in the sight of the Owner as a debt-free (righteous) individual.

This is what is described in the Lutheran Confessions.We reject and condemn the following errors…

Where the righteousness of faith is spoken of in the sayings of the prophets and apostles, the words justify and to be justified are not to mean “declaring or being declared free from sins,” and “obtaining the forgiveness of sins.” But they actually mean “being made righteous before God, because of love infused by the Holy Spirit, virtues and the works following them.”
To take out the double negative, the confessions affirm that the words justify and to be justified mean “declaring or being declared free from sins,” and “obtaining the forgiveness of sins.”**
**
In other words, to be justified means appearing debt-free in the sight of God.

No kidding.