Grace: Protestant vs Catholic understanding

[Catholic_Dude]

Because neither righteousness, nor grace, is a “substance”

Yes it can ALSO be a “substance”.
One clear example is 1 Cor 15:10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me.

God takes out the heart of stone, and the old spirit, and puts in a heart of flesh, and a new spirit; God doesn’t inoculate a believer; He doesn’t promise to ”inject your soul with some sweet rock ‘n roll, and shoot you full of rhythm and blues;” “rhythm and blues” being, “righteousness and grace.”Ezekiel 36:26

“Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

You have got to be KIDDING me. That verse is PRECISELY infused grace. It LITERALLY changes you from the INSIDE

Grace is an attitude, a disposition of God toward all of His creation; righteousness, with respect to imputation, is a “position” that the believer occupies:**2 Corinthians 5:21

**He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, SO THAT we might become the righteousness of God in Him [Christ].Notice that believer does not become ”the righteousness of God in himself; rather the believer becomes “the righteousness of God” because his position is IN CHRIST.

No, you are misreading that passage, it is talking about being a part of Christ’s body/family. If you look at the context you see “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” There is a inward TRANSFORMATION.

As Paul said, “that I may be found IN HIM, not having a righteousness OF MY OWN, but a RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH IS IN CHRIST, THROUGH FAITH.

NOBODY says this righteousness or grace was inherent (ie “my own”) but it was given as a gift.

My account is not my soul, my account is my debt of sin, acquired on the basis of having been IN ADAM, and living for the world; but now I am dead, and live IN CHRIST; rather, He lives in me (cf Gal 2:20).

You are not making sense. The soul is where sin is, it is tarnished by sin, thus it must be washed clean.

One would think so; however, that is not what scripture tells us.

Interesting, if someone has no sin they must be holy…yet “that is not what Scripture says”?

As with “righteousness,” so too with sanctification: the believer is completely sanctified “positionally,” but practically, he is not; the practical side of sanctification begins at belief, and continues to physical death; however, the regenerate believer still contends with sin:Romans 7:21-23

21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.
22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man,
23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.The believer’s desires are conflicted; his mind joyfully loves God’s law, but within him there still dwells the residual principle, or law, of evil—sin (cf Rom 8:22-23).

How can a believer ever get sanctified “practically” if grace is “not a substance”? Further, how does he get sanctified “practically” if the debt is already gone? The parts in Rom 7 and 8 are about the sinful nature which is a consequence of the fall, it is not sin itself, but rather the constant temptation to sin. That is why Paul says it is a WAR. Places like Rom 8 make it clear regarding infused grace:9You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet **your spirit is alive because of righteousness. **11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.
That can only be infused because it was God’s spirit GIVEN to and residing IN you.

(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Thus Paul’s warning:Galatians 5:16-18
13You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. 14The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 15If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
** 6 But I say, walk by the Spirit**, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.
17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, SO THAT you may not do the things that you please.
18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.

Again, that can ONLY be INFUSED grace because it is regarding how you ACT, and you cannot act proper without the guidance/indwelling of the spirit.

(continued from post #54)

And what happens if he dies immediately after he believes (ie immediately after Justification)?

Are you sure? That would mean infused grace making him inwardly righteous (ie sanctified) was simultaneous with Justification.

Paul says his righteousness is not his own, but that the righteousness that he has is in Christ, through faith.

NOT his own means it wasnt inherent to him, NOT that it was not or cannot be given to him, it can and was.

---

Jesus is talking to the Pharisees in that verse.

You MISSED the point. The point is Jesus is REPULSED by the idea of outward purity when the inner is filth…and yet you want to have God declaring someone righteous who “appear AS IF you were righteous” indicating they are not actually.

John 13:10

Jesus said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean…Jesus is talking to a believer in that one—a believer who is “in Him.”

WHAT? He is SPIRITUALLY clean, that is what that is saying, that is infused grace…I dont know why you even mentioned that.

Correct, our sins have been removed “as far as the east is from the west” (Ps 103:12), and God, for His own sake, remembers the sinner’s sin “no more” (Is 43:25; cf Heb 9:26), because the believer’s old self is dead, and his new self is safely “hidden in Christ” (Col 3:3), who is his refuge.

What are you talking about, you start off AGREEING that Christ doesnt cover us like a sheet, yet you close by saying we are “hidden in Christ”. There you go again with the appearing in the sight of God “AS IF you were righteous”.

:nope:

What is the “no” about? Places like Gal 5:1-4 are clear you can become a slave to sin again, he further warns in places like 5:19-21 that such sins can lead to hell.

 

[sandusky]

He could die because he was human.

You are exactly right, that is why Catholics reject the notion the Father punished the Son. It is the Protestant understanding that the Father had to unleash His anger, and that He unloaded it on His Son. The Catholic understanding is that Jesus was a spotless Lamb, never worthy of punishment, nor could the Father do such a thing, rather it was the display of love by offering Himself up was a fragrant aroma to the Father (Eph 5:2).

He didnt become sin in the literal sense, He was a spotless Lamb from start to finish. The Father cannot treat, nor did He treat Jesus as a sinner. That is figurative language for “a sin offering” (ie sacrifice).

Here is an example to show how each side understands Christ’s suffering and death:
Lets say a group of kids crash the family car, the Father is upset about this and needs to spank the kids…but the mother steps in…

-Protestants would say the mother would have to receive the equivalent beating that the children deserved and thus the Father would be satisfied.

-Catholics on the other hand reject that notion because the Father could never act in such a way towards His wife. Rather, the wife stepped in and spent all day in a hot-sweaty kitchen to prepare the Father a nice multi-course home cooked meal. The Father was so pleased at this act that He in turn decided not to discipline the children.

I hope you see the difference and why the Catholics hold the position they do.

Now, in regards to imputed vs infused, here is what the situation would look like:
-Protestants: The Father no longer holds the children guilty, not because He dropped the charges, but because someone else took their punishment.

-Catholics: The Father no longer holds the children guilty because He dropped the charges at the intercession of His wife.

Protestants believe the Father played an active role in the suffering and death of Jesus (imputation means the Father treated Jesus like a sinner). Catholics believe the Father stood by while wicked humans, not realizing what they were doing, tortured and murdered Jesus.

Please, consider the stark differences in how each side understands this, and how Catholics strive to keep God free from anything that would make Him look bad (eg “punishing” the Son).

Your analogy is not accurate.“There is the condemned criminal, the guilty sinner. But beside him there is only One, who is Judge, Wronged Party, King (or Law), and Substitute. God was not administering someone else’s law, but His own, and the sin was not committed against someone else, but against Him; and above all He did not take someone else and accept him as substitute for the condemned sinner, but He came Himself, took upon Himself the nature of the guilty ones, and bore the penalty of His own law. The Substitute who died on Calvary expressly declared Himself to be the Judge of the world. Instead, therefore, of a judge punishing an innocent third party in place of the criminal, we have a Triune judge, One of whose Persons identified Himself with the nature of the criminal in all except his sin, then takes the sin itself upon Himself, and suffers the penalty of His own Law, which indeed has no existence independent of Him. Moreover, not only is there this identity between the Substitute and the Judge, but also in a mysterious sense between the Substitute and the criminal, when the latter, becomes willing to accept the identification.”

H.E. Guillebaud, Why the Cross? (London: InterVarsity Fellowship, 1954), 147f.​

 

[Jake1975]

“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.”

I can’t help but see this as splitting hairs. What I know is what the New Testament lays out as the roadmap for our salvation. Call it justification, atonement, satisfaction, or whatever.

John 3:16 and John 10:10 speak of God’s love for us and the wonderful plan he has for our lives.

Romans 3:23 and Romans 6:23 discuss why we aren’t experiencing the abundant life God had intended for us. We are sinful and separated from God. Because there is a gulf between us and God that sin created, we cannot know and experience His love and His plan for our lives.

Jesus Christ provided the only way to bridge the gap. He is the only provision for man’s sin. Romans 5:8 says that He died in our place, I Corinthians 15: 3-6 says He rose from the dead, and John 14: 6 says that He is the only way.

Hohn 1: 12 says we must receive Christ, Ephesians 2: 8-9 says we receive Christ through faith, and Revelation 3:20 says we recceive Christ through personal invitation.

The book of Romans lays it out another way: It explains our condition (Rom 3:23), our destiny (6:23), our Savior (5:8), our salvation (10: 9-10), and our assurance (8: 38-39).

This is our stand. This is our position. Anything else is the ramblings of theologians offering commentary on the inspired Word of God.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Hmm, you have hit on a very controversial subject in Protestantism! Are you debating with a Calvinist or an Arminian? .

This case regards ALL of Protestants, but is especially relevant to the Lutheran and Calvinist camps.

Although the analogy above is a good attempt to put our belief of justification in a box, it does come up short- although, to your credit, it was a worthy try.

Then go ahead and show where I got it wrong.

Quoting Martin Luther as THE AUTHORITY of evangelicals, protestants, whoever, is risky business. Most see his doctrines as a first move away from Catholicism during the Reformation. Most agree he didn’t go far enough in most of his positions.

Did you even read my Opening Post? The OP quoted the from the Book of Concord, which was accepted by the Lutheran Bishops, so you cant throw out the charge this was one of Luther’s wacky thoughts.

I am very interested in responding to this as a Protestant. I will have to give it some thought to articulate our view as precisely as I can. Of course, denominations are different, whether they are Calvinist, Arminian, somewhere in between (or just plain heretical)- so others may disagree. Although I hate denominational labels, I will be writing as a Baptist who challenges the “once saved always saved” position (many do when questioned thoroughly)

What do you mean by “challenges the OSAS position”? Do you mean you are for or against OSAS?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

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.

NO, he was not speaking about being justified in the eye of men, he was obeying God. There is no such thing as being justified in they eyes of men unless you are a pharisee. You dont have to prove yourself to anyone but God.
If you want to get into the “order of events” concerning Abraham’s life you should start with my signature. But that is getting off topic, so if you want to then start a new thread and invite me over.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Your analogy is not accurate.“There is the condemned criminal, the guilty sinner. But beside him there is only One, who is Judge, Wronged Party, King (or Law), and Substitute. God was not administering someone else’s law, but His own, and the sin was not committed against someone else, but against Him; and above all He did not take someone else and accept him as substitute for the condemned sinner, but He came Himself, took upon Himself the nature of the guilty ones, and bore the penalty of His own law. The Substitute who died on Calvary expressly declared Himself to be the Judge of the world. Instead, therefore, of a judge punishing an innocent third party in place of the criminal, we have a Triune judge, One of whose Persons identified Himself with the nature of the criminal in all except his sin, then takes the sin itself upon Himself, and suffers the penalty of His own Law, which indeed has no existence independent of Him. Moreover, not only is there this identity between the Substitute and the Judge, but also in a mysterious sense between the Substitute and the criminal, when the latter, becomes willing to accept the identification.”

H.E. Guillebaud, Why the Cross? (London: InterVarsity Fellowship, 1954), 147f.​

Sorry, but I dont see what you are even responding to. Slapping a quote down instead of addressing my actual comments doesnt help the discussion.

How is my analogy not accurate?

 

[sandusky]

Sorry, but I dont see what you are even responding to. Slapping a quote down instead of addressing my actual comments doesnt help the discussion.

How is my analogy not accurate?

How indeed. Take some more time, savoring, and digesting Mr. Guillebaud’s words.

 

[Jake1975]

Catholic Dude,

Because I have to get ready for bed, I can only address a couple of the points you bring up in response to my reply to your post.

First, I know you weren’t quoting Luther. I got confused with a different post. I realized my mistake a little later and hoped it would slip under the radar, oops. I look like an idiot.

Second, when you question Protestants thoroughly enough, you quickly find that the two camps that believe in “once saved always saved” (watered-down Calvinism) and that one can lose his/her salvation (Arminianism) are actually saying the same thing from opposite ends.

If we have a true life saving faith, the Holy Spirit will give us a desire to become more like Him, and works become a natural outpouring of our living faith. If there is not a yearning in our hearts to live a holy life pleasing to God, we need to seriously question whether our faith in Christ is genuine. True salvation brings with it a desire to be made holy. That is the distinction between faith and works, and the security of our salvation. Our good works are simply proofs of our living faith in our Savior.

I bring this up because if someone could “lose” their salvation, they were never really saved to begin with. One can confess a faith in Christ (the devil believes and trembles) and not be saved from the wrath of God because it is not a living faith. A living faith will continue to grow under the power and influence of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the “once saved always saved” profession of a 12 year old whose life shows no spiritual fruit afterward was never saved to begin with. The recipe for salvation with the muttered prayer does nothing if the life of the one uttering it is not impacted mightily over time through the Holy Spirit. We are only able to receive the Spirit through communion with God that is only made possible by accepting Christ as our Savior through His work on the cross and following resurrection.

Therefore, we do not believe that it is simply covering an old debt of ours with someone else’s account. The Spirit of God begins to change us on the inside, making us white as snow, not through any ritual, but by His very presence because of our living faith and refusal to step away from the throne of Grace and the feet of the source of our very life and reason for living- Jesus Christ Himself.

Wow, I hope that made a little bit of sense. My brain is fried from a long day in the sun.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Ahh! I can’t keep up with all the comments. My head is swimming. I think GraceSeeker said it best (see below- sorry, couldn’t find the “quote” button)- in a simple format that hit the foundation of the discussion. I’m out… Sorry- it is fascinating, though!

“My debt is paid, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.
How this done, is by God grace, for the debt I owed he took my place.
Infuse, imputed, we can debate, finding the answer won’t change the slate.
It takes Christ’s blood to set me free and make me fit for eternity.”

Ah, don’t quote me, Jake. I’ve been told that simply by asking whether or not the thief on the cross received infused or imputed grace that I proved that I don’t know what I’m talking about. Sorry to lead you astray with my thoughts.

Wonder what will be the response to asking if Romans 4 describes infused or imputed grace?

 

[mark_a]

Sanctification is not complete in this life. Glorification comes with the ressurection when our bodies are raised and changed.

Thanks so much.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Is it a Protestant view that glorification is accomplished by dying?

Depending on the Protestant you ask, you may get different answers. Methodists would hold that glorification is the state of exaltation that the believer is elevated to in union with Christ and only happens subsequent to our death, but it is not because we have died, but because we are in Christ.

Methodists would not link glorification and sanctification holding that being made holy is different from being exalted. Indeed we would hold that sanctification is generally a process begun in this life by God at work within us. And while rare, we would even hold out hope that some might be entirely sanctified even before being glorified.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Ah, don’t quote me, Jake. I’ve been told that simply by asking whether or not the thief on the cross received infused or imputed grace that I proved that I don’t know what I’m talking about. Sorry to lead you astray with my thoughts.

I didnt mean to offend you, did I? What I said was that you didnt appear to be concerned with the fact there are two understandings of grace and if you dont recognize this factor then both sides wont make sense.

Wonder what will be the response to asking if Romans 4 describes infused or imputed grace?

It describes Infused, it says explicitly that Abraham’s FAITH was the basis for God considering him righteous.

Sorry if I came off mean or anything…

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Second, when you question Protestants thoroughly enough, you quickly find that the two camps that believe in “once saved always saved” (watered-down Calvinism) and that one can lose his/her salvation (Arminianism) are actually saying the same thing from opposite ends.

So you are saying both sides believe in OSAS? I do think there is truth to that to a great extent (some Lutherans I have been talking to appear to lean towards OSAS despite the fact their denomination teaches salvation can be lost) That being said, there are groups like Assemblies of God and Methodists in general who Im pretty sure reject OSAS.

If we have a true life saving faith, the Holy Spirit will give us a desire to become more like Him, and works become a natural outpouring of our living faith. If there is not a yearning in our hearts to live a holy life pleasing to God, we need to seriously question whether our faith in Christ is genuine. True salvation brings with it a desire to be made holy. That is the distinction between faith and works, and the security of our salvation. Our good works are simply proofs of our living faith in our Savior.

They you have to explain why St Paul wrote letters to the Corinthians and Galatians yelling at them because they turned to lives of sin. There was no automatic outpouring of good works, in fact good works are never guaranteed to flow.

I bring this up because if someone could “lose” their salvation, they were never really saved to begin with. One can confess a faith in Christ (the devil believes and trembles) and not be saved from the wrath of God because it is not a living faith. A living faith will continue to grow under the power and influence of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the “once saved always saved” profession of a 12 year old whose life shows no spiritual fruit afterward was never saved to begin with. The recipe for salvation with the muttered prayer does nothing if the life of the one uttering it is not impacted mightily over time through the Holy Spirit. We are only able to receive the Spirit through communion with God that is only made possible by accepting Christ as our Savior through His work on the cross and following resurrection.

Two problems here. First regarding the losing salvation but never really saved, that is like saying I got my car stolen but I never owned a car. The Bible is clear salvation can be lost through grave sin (Gal 5:19-20; Rev 2:4-5).
Second, your example of a 12 year old actually hurts your position because what you are saying is that someone who doesnt understand (or not mature enough) cannot be saved, if a child thinks they are professing faith in Jesus but cant comprehend what that means then they are not saved. And this isnt limited to children, you yourself could think you have faith in Jesus but down the road fall away proving you thought you were saved the whole time but in fact were deceived the whole time. The fact is the classical Protestant (especially Reformed) cannot know of they are saved, we can start a thread on this.

Therefore, we do not believe that it is simply covering an old debt of ours with someone else’s account. The Spirit of God begins to change us on the inside, making us white as snow, not through any ritual, but by His very presence because of our living faith and refusal to step away from the throne of Grace and the feet of the source of our very life and reason for living- Jesus Christ Himself.

The part highlighted in red is describing infused grace, and this was explicitly condemned by the classical protestant groups.

 

[Jake1975]

If having the Holy Spirit change us on the inside is considered “infused grace” by Catholics, then it has been my experience that Protestants do indeed believe in infused grace, but not in association with the act of the Eucharist. Like many arguments, the way the question is phrased will influence the response received.

By the way, the rest of your points have a lot of validity in my opinion, although I don’t claim to be a theologian or a worthy rep of Protestant thought. I’m no C.S. Lewis.

OSAS- I don’t really believe in it, yet I do. That’s the stand most evangelicals would take if forced to dig deep enough. It’s like explaining the Trinity in a coherent way, or explaining the balance between the seemingly counter doctrines of God’s sovereignty and man’s freedom to choose.

As far as works being an outpouring of true, life-saving faith and your example of the Galatians, etc, we are human. We screw up, we turn to the left and to the right. The difference is that we cannot be content while we are straying from God. The Holy Spirit will make us miserable until we crawl back onto the Potter’s wheel. They say the problem with a living sacrifice is that it continues to crawl off the alter. If we can live with contentment away from God, however, something is terribly wrong. It would suggest that the Holy Spirit is not at work in our lives. When true contentment only comes when walking in the will of God, that is evidence of a life-saving faith. That means the Spirit of God is at home in our hearts and our salvation is sure.

There, now I’ve succeeded in coming across like a raving lunatic.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

They say the problem with a living sacrifice is that it continues to crawl off the alter.

I just might use that on Sunday. Do I have to give you credit? Where do I send the royalty check?

 

[Jake1975]

Grace Seeker,

It’s public domain, but you can still feel free to send me a royalty check!

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Check’s in the mail.

 

[anthony022071]

Grace is understood by both Protestants and Catholics to be a very nice young girl,though somewhat elusive.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Grace is understood by both Protestants and Catholics to be a very nice young girl,though somewhat elusive.

I thought that was Faith (twin sisters?).