How can a blood-sacrifice renew our Nature?

  • Thread starter Thread starter God_Seeker_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A straw man is just that: a debater takes the original argument of his adversary, offers a close imitation of the original argument, “knocks down” the straw man version of the argument (because it is a much easier target to hit), and thereby gives the appearance of having successfully countered the original argument.

I had the feeling that it was a straw man argument, but you sealed it when you finally stated what you had in mind: “this happens millions of times …] constantly entering and exiting the state of grace”. You are ignoring the actual position and substituting for it a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position, not realizing that attacking the distorted version of the position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.

Consider the opposite, then! The man never goes “in and out” of the state of grace…he simply never is in an interior state of grace, but, rather, he is always a sinner, but he is cloaked and covered by the righteousness of Christ, even as he verbally abuses his wife again and again and again, and regardless of whether he is giving full consent or not to the abuse, and regardless of whether he even repents about this and works on his temper issues. What this is saying is that this man, by the mere fact that at one point in his life he was properly disposed to accept Christ (or was baptized, perhaps as an infant, as the Apostles taught us to do), will remain righteous even though he is still a sinner, and that Christ will embrace this man and not allow him to enter the state of hell even though he verbally abused his wife a million times, perhaps never even repenting once. Is this the Good News? No, this is a joke.

So let us forget about the angry husband,leave the cherry-picking aside, and focus on the big picture: the work of redemption. Why did Christ tell Peter to forget not seven times, but seventy-times-seven? Clearly because He knew that men would fall again, and again, and even a million times, and that they could potentially lose themselves again, and again, even a million times. Thus He commanded us - or rather, graciously asked us - to forgive as many times as needed, and after teaching us to pray to God: “forgive us our trespasses”, He established the sacrament of Reconciliation, giving the apostles and their legitimate successors the authority to remit and retain sins: because He understood that there would have been such a need to remit sins periodically (given that our life is a way of the Cross, and we do fall under the weight of the Cross every so often), and that sometimes there was a need to work harder on true contrition and repentance, thus authorizing to retain sin until certain conditions were met. If I keep falling into the same mortal sin again and again, at one point my confessor will have to take steps in order to stir my lukewarmness and move me to strengthen my will, because Confession is not a juke-box where you stick a quarter and the music comes out and everything is nice and jolly, nobody fools with God. If I am truly repentant, yet I keep falling, then perhaps there are more things I need to do in order to radically change my life, other than feeling sorry for having messed up and seeking reconciliation with Christ every time.

However, what does the novel protestant position argue? That all of the above is nonsense, that there is no such thing as remission of sin, that there isn’t even such thing as an apostolic succession. That grace is exterior. And I say novel, but in fact it isn’t novel: the Church Fathers had to deal with quite a few heretical communities whose teachers taught the very same errors, much to the dismay of those who were holding on to orthodox Christian doctrine.

I am very sad that my ignorance does not consent me to show you just how erroneous the exterior grace argument is. To me, I have no doubt whatsoever that sanctifying grace truly transforms my whole soul into something worthy of being inhabited by the living God, though I am far from being impeccable and still remain subject to the concupiscences and temptations of the world, of the devil, and of the flesh. The only argument in my mind is this: when is a sin truly a mortal sin? Often times, what appears mortal may not be so. However, the Church teaches me that repentance united to the desire to confess suffices for restoration of sanctifying grace even prior to the confession itself, and that, to me, is more than enough. I am too simple-minded to question the Church on this. I relax and keep following Christ through faith and works, and if I fall and I feel I gravely offended Christ or my fellow neighbor (which in fact may be the same thing) I go to the Sacrament of forgiveness, reconciliation, and reparation, where I am not bound to go only in case of mortal sin, but rather I am advised to go periodically even if only conscious of minor sins or imperfections. And as far as I know, this is how saints are made.

I probably will barely manage to escape hellfire and solely by God’s mercy, but if I do, it will be thanks to and through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. That is how I turned my back on the world and started walking towards Christ: it took a sign of the cross and an absolution to take my old heart and replace it with something else that felt entirely different, and it made no sense to me and it is still unexplainable, but I know one thing: it works. And who am I to even think it doesn’t work? Who am I to dismiss orthodox tradition on behalf of modern-day personal interpretations? I’d rather go before the Divine Judge knowing that at least I tried to be humble and obedient, giving even assent of mind and will to what the Church taught me, than to be called to explain why I made the decision to ignore or reject the Church teaching and accept the contradictory doctrines of Luther, Calvin, or the preacher next door, or - even worse! - my own doctrine.
 
I think we are getting off topic here. I would kindly R_C to not comment if there is not a serious attempt to answer the question and explain how Catholic theology accounts for this fundamental issue. The original question “How does a blood-sacrifice renew our nature?” has yet to be answered. Some answers that have been given are as follows: 1) The Church says so. 2) The forgiveness of sin is the actual obliteration of sin. 3) Because then God would leave us a sinner inside if he didn’t.

In response, 1) The Catholic Church says so. This might be the case, and I would honor it if the question was simply what authority does this teaching derive from. But the question is a mechanical question, not a broad question of authority. Therefore, appealing to the authority of the Church is overall, unsatisfactory in answering the question.

In response 2) The forgiveness of sin is the actual obliteration of sin. If this was the case, then why would the Council of Trent say that justification is not just the forgiveness of sin, but also the inner sanctification of man which truly makes man righteous. If the phrase “forgiveness of sin” meant the obliteration and total removal of sin, it’s practice and presence, then there would have simply been a further explanation on the nature of forgiveness. But the Tridentine Catholics did not see the “forgiveness of sin” as covering the renewal of the nature of man, for they insisted that it was not just merely the forgiveness of sin, but also the renewal of our nature. Therefore, the Tridentine Catholic Bishops themselves made a definitive distinction between sanctification and the forgiveness of sin. This is not my own logic or understanding.

In response 3) The Catholic argument that Protestant salvation leaves the sinner in sin. The problem with this is that it ignores the protestant doctrine of sanctification, which happens simultaneously with justification, wherein the inner nature of the person is re-created. Therefore the person is not left an evil sinner inside while forgiven, but rather is forgiven and renewed! Now, I personally do not believe in the protestant doctrine of salvation, but I am courteous enough to understand them in their own terms. Catholics, especially those who are inconsiderate, wish to bash protestants on this idea that they believe that we the same sinner and vice remains in the heart of man while God says they are righteous. This is not the case. The original protestants believed that justification is not sufficient to save man, for it is merely the outward pardon…which is why they posited the need for sanctification, which renewed the heart of man. The protestant reformers did not believe a man could be justified and saved while still contributing to the same slave life of sin that his former life was caught up in.

Finally, to get back into focus. Paul says that *“in Christ, we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sin” (Ephesians 1:7). * Also in another place *“He has delivered up from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.” (*Colossians 1:13). In Pauline theology, “redemption” in the present age comes in the form of the “forgiveness of sin” which is accomplished through the “blood” of “Christ Jesus”. Of course, there is that future redemption of the body for which we all eagerly wait (Rom 8:24). But Paul speaks about a present immediate redemption, that is the forgiveness of sins as Paul has explained in Ephesians 1:7 and Colossians 1:13. So when Paul says we have been “justified freely By His grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of propitiation in His blood” (Rom 3:24), he must have in mind with this “justification” is the forgiveness of sin. The “blood” of Jesus makes atonement, atonement sets us free from the guilt of sin. This freedom from the guilt of sin brings the release from the sentence of death. Therefore, the Catholic insistence that this passage means that we are ontologically “made righteous” in our persons through renewing our nature into one that is holy and righteous, is simply harder to defend than what I have posited. For the justification that Paul speaks about in Romans 3:21-26 is one which is structured off of atonement of sin and guilt by sacrifice, temple language…and the logic forces a serious student of Paul to be fair and consistent with the language and the nature of the argument. The Lamb was sacrificed on Yom Kippur to make atonement for the people. Jesus’ sacrifice makes atonement for our sin, and so when we are baptized into Christ, we receive this benefit of atonement, the forgiveness of sin, justification, release from punishment for our sin.

Now, does this now mean that the sinner is left unchanged or with the ability to remain in sin while still enjoying the exterior and permanent grace of imputed righteousness. Absolutely not! For those who are baptized into Christ also enter into several other graces alongside of the forgiveness of sin! They are dead to sin and alive to righteousness! If one continues in the flesh, he will die! (Rom 8:13). One must put to death the deeds of the body, to mortify the flesh, and to enslave oneself to righteousness in order to eventually enter into Eternal life!

I do not see how defining “justification” as merely the forgiveness of sin somehow forced me to escape from the reality of the inner nature of salvation. Not one person has shown this.
 
God_Seeker said:
The original question “How does a blood-sacrifice renew our nature?” has yet to be answered.
Click to expand...
Note: if your question is not answered by the catechism, then consider that there might be something wrong with your question.

Now, blood sacrifice - by itself - has nothing, zip, zero, nada to do with our regeneration. Baptism does. This is not an ‘either/or’ proposition. It is a ‘both/and’ proposition. Jesus submitted to both: was baptized and shed His Blood. We need both.
 
po18guy said:
Blood sacrifice - by itself - has nothing, zip, zero, nada to do with our regeneration. Baptism does. This is not an ‘either/or’ proposition. It is a ‘both/and’ proposition. Jesus submitted to both: was baptized and shed His Blood. We need both.

It might help if you would describe, in detail, precisely what you mean by “renew our nature”
Click to expand...
I think if you separate Christ’s sacrifice from the renewal of our nature, then you run into problems when Paul says “we are justified in His blood” (Rom 5:9) or that we are “justified by the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forth as a sacrifice of atonement” (Rom 3:240. There seems to be a direct causal relationship. So the question is not whether there is a causal connection, but how do we understand it so that it supports the Catholic understanding of justification
 
I agree.

I thought there might be a way to make sense of these statements.
 
God_Seeker said:
I think we are getting off topic here. I would kindly R_C to not comment if there is not a serious attempt to answer the question and explain how Catholic theology accounts for this fundamental issue. The original question “How does a blood-sacrifice renew our nature?” has yet to be answered.
Click to expand...
I tried my best, given my ignorance. I sincerely apologize if this did not appear as a serious attempt to answer your question, and I will refrain from further posting.
 
God_Seeker said:
I agree.

I thought there might be a way to make sense of these statements.
Click to expand...
For all we know, Paul was speaking of the entirety of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection in making that statement. In truth, our Lord’s human journey cannot be separated into bits and pieces. It is a seamless event, on the model of His garment or the nature of scripture.
 
God Seeker,

In Catholic theology the forgiveness of sins does not happen without the infusion of grace.

St. Thomas Aquinas makes this point in Article 2 Summa Theologica Question 113.

Canon 11 Council of Trent: If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; . . . let him be anathema.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top