How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Correct?

[benedictus2]

We get to heaven by grace through faith in Christ. We respond to that grace by trying to live as He would have us live. Consistent refusal to do so, without repentence, is evidence of a dead faith, which does not save.

But that is all very nebulous. The reformers tried to make a bit more sense of that by this two step stage of justification and sanctification which as I have shown above shows some inconsistencies.

Merely declared. You make God declaring something sound like a nothing. If God declares I am righteous in His sight, is it not so? Is that not good enough for Him? Should it not be good enough for me?

But the question is not whether God’s declaration is a “merely” but whether this is in fact the case, “that God declares you righteous but leaves you unrighteous.”

Do you really think that God lies to himself and says we are clean when in fact we are putrid underneath?

I have read a few commentaries from former Lutherans and Protestants in general and everyone seems to agree that this declaration is forensic. I would think that Beckwith, McGrath and Mascall would know what they are talking about with regards the nature of justification for protestants.

Which is why I keep asking this question: If at justification when you are declared righteous you are actually considered righteous, what then is the need for the second stage of sanctification when you are already righteous?

Can’t you see the inconsistency there?

If you choose to say you are righteous, and I choose to say, God declares me righteous, which of us is not righteous in God’s eyes?

First off the error in that question is that I will never say I am righteous. But neither will I say that God will say I am righteous while underneath I remain the same miserable rotten smelly sinner that I am.

Rather God will set about **making **me righteous by his grace such that when He says I am righteous I am actually so because His grace has caused this transformation in me and made me so.

Show me where Lutherans say sanctification is not necessary. I have no need to defend something I do not believe.
“There is no justification without sanctification, no forgiveness without renewal of life, no real faith from which the fruits of new obedience do not grow.”

Luther

Luther did not teach, nor do Lutherans belief, what you are contending here.
But even from this statement I can already see the same problem I have outlined above.

Luther says there is no justification without sanctification. But according to Reformed theology, Justification precedes sanctification.

So again, a man is justified then immediately dies. Does that mean that he is already sanctified? Or does it leave him still at the justified stage? If still at the justified stage, since sanctification has not yet happened (he is dead after all), will he go to heaven?

If you say yes, then that means he goes to heaven just at the justified stage.

If someone therefore can enter heaven at the justified stage then what is there a need for sanctification?

But if you say no, he needs to be sanctified, then what is point of justification when you can very well die justified and still go to hell?

What I am trying to illustrate here is the inconsistency, the holes in this kind of sundered theology.

Is because Christ commanded it a good enough reason?

But the point is do you think that Christ commands for no reason? He says do good just because…?

This is why Catholic theology makes so much more sense. We do not say “Oh because Christ said so”. It would be like Christ said “hop on this merry go round that goes nowhere because I said so”. No doubt we do things because God said so and should do at God’s decree. But God does not leave it at that. Christ said so for a reason. And that reason is knowable.

 

[Contarini]

But best judgment is not enough. Everyone uses their best judgment and I am sure you don’t believe that everyone will be saved.

But no one will be damned because they made an intellectual mistake.

Edwin

 

[Tantum_ergo]

But no one will be damned because they made an intellectual mistake.

Edwin

If the intellectual mistake was to reject Christ’s salvation, and deliberately choose hell? Surely we use our intellect to accept Him; don’t we use it if we reject Him?

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;6870669]But that is precisely my point. How do you reconcile that with a justification that is forensic? Why command us to work out our salvation when all that is needed for salvation is to be declared righteous?

Apparently, the way you are phrasing it, that would also mean God did not even need to send His son. He simply declares us righteous, or simply makes us righteous, and He’s done with it. Obviously, He intends for us to love Him, and by the good works we do, love our neighbors. He sends His Spirit to us, as sinners, to grow in grace and sanctification.

And there is my point. We do not make a distinction between justification and sanctification. As I mentioned before, this split between justification and sanctification is a theological novelty of the reformation.

The only split, as you call it, is a understanding of what God does - justification being monergistic - and how we respond - sanctification being generally synergistic.

When we talk of infusion of grace, we mean the grace acting and transforming the soul. When that transformation into the image of Christ is complete, then we can say we have been made righteous and therefore justified. The grace has worked this transformation and so we can rightly say we have been justified by grace.

And this expectation to grow in grace is different how from what I said above?

Hopefully before I die but I doubt it. I am a sturbborn, prideful, lazy, condescending, impatient, judgmental (you name it) person

Sounds like you are talking about me.

I will most likely die requiring an intensive cleansing in the soul department . However, only God knows whether I will go through purgatory or not. All I know is that if I am struck dead right now, then purgatory here I come:sad_yes:.

Why? Are are you not simply made righteous? If righteousness is infused in you, and you are a new creature, why the need for Purgatory? I think the answer will be that you, like me, know that while grace saves us, we both remain influenced by sin, and as Paul says, “the good that I would, that I do not, the wrong I would not, that I do”.

But, I have seen some changes in me, in particular at one life changing moment during a retreat when God showed me just how tenderly He loves me and how great His Mercy truly is. Hopefully a lot of purgation will have occurred prior to me saying “bye world” ( I did bear my broken foot and the incapacitation cheerfully ). I think I am slowly (snail pace) being conformed into the image of my True Love so who knows. But purgatory or not, the only thing that matters is that His will be done with regards myself.

Then you would agree with me that it is by grace that you are growing ever more toward being conformed Him, that your own efforts, without Grace, are worthless in His eyes.

Here it seems that grace is a mere legal declaration. One is not made sinless, one is merely declared sinless but remains a sinner. That is why the Protestant view of justification is always termed “forensic”.

And this is precisely why “there is no justification without sanctification”. I am still a sinner. I still need the sacraments as a means of grace, to grow and become evermore conformed to Him.

This is why I have said a few times before that it seems Luther’s theology is at schism with itself. It was not very well thought out, as happens, when a man comes up with a whole theology by himself.

And yet Pope Benedict seems to think it not so innovative as Catholics once thought.

But the question is why? Why do you need to live by His commands if you are already declared just even before you are sanctified?

Are you under the impression that I believe that once we are justified, I cannot lose that justification?

Okay, to take this slowly (correct me here if I am wrong).

Step 1: Man is justified by grace.
Step 2. After being justified sanctification follows.
Here are the questions:

What is the state of the soul at the point of justification? Is the soul blameless and already conformed to the image of Christ?

Held blameless, but not completely conformed. Saint and sinner

If yes, then what is sanctification for?

To become more Christlike. To follow His commands. To care for the least of His children.

If no, then why is the soul declared just when it is not just because sanctification still needs to happen? Can the person go to heaven if immediately after justification he dies? If so, what is the point of sanctification.

What happens to a baby if it dies immediately after baptism? What happened to the thief on the cross? The baby is saved by the forgiveness of sins in Baptism. The thief was justified by his faith (Catholics might reasonable say a Baptism of desire). He had no time for santification, but there is no doubt that he went to Heaven. If I am blessed with the time here on Earth to follow His commands, I must do so, not because my works save me, but instead in response to His grace that saves me.
Scripture relates that: 1) the just shall live by faith, and 2) that faith without works (I’ll stretch this and call it sanctification) is dead.

Failure to do as Christ commands means one of two things, either I never has faith to start with, I exercised my free will to reject Him through repeated and unrepented sin, in which case my faith is dead, and no longer a saving faith.

Jon

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC,

I have enjoyed reading your responses and interactions with the other posters. Allow me to make a small contribution to one of the items you have questioned. /COLOR]

Lutherans pray for the dead, as well. But this wasn’t the question, my question was where do I find in scripture a command, a promise, or an example of invoking the Blessed Virgin or the saints?

I guess the very first item to address is that Catholic do not worship Mary. Worship is due to God alone. Catholics do have a very special respect for Mary - and this can be found in Luke’s account of Mary’s visit to Elizabeth, “All generations will call me blessed…” (Luke 1:48)

It is clear Catholic teaching that Mary was created in the same manner as every other human being - the union of her father’s sperm with her mother’s egg. But, it does not end there! At the very instant of conception - unlike us - Mary was conceived WITHOUT Original Sin. So, according to the Divine Plan of God, His Son would have a pure and undefiled dwelling place (like the Ark of the Covenant) - and this time, it would be Mary’s womb. Mary was identified to be “…full of grace…” (Luke 1:28) and this is NOT by anything she did, but by the Power of God Who selected Mary for this special honor.

Now, the obvious question, JonNC, is that if God went to all this Effort … and selected Mary from all women (past, present and future) for such a tremendous honor - to be the Mother of God, doesn’t it make sense for us to honor her, too? But, don’t stop there! While Mary does not appear often in the Gospel accounts of Christ’s life, please take a look at the influence Mary has on her Son as shown in John 2:1-11. Mary comes to the resuce of this newly married couple by bringing their need to her Son. Now, a casual reading of these verses would give most readers the idea that Christ was not too enthuaistic about this activity (but, recall He is God and knew from all eternity that they would run out of wine and His Mother would step in to help.)

It could be argued that Christ could have done anything: from not allowing the feast to run low on wine or anything else - to totally ignoring His Mother’s request. So, with an infinite number of choices, look what God chose - to obey the request of His Mother. If we have any faith in the Words of Scripture to teach us lessons pleasing to God - then it would seem like going to Mary is a good ‘take home message’.

Again, it was Christ - NOT Mary - Who died for our sins. It is Christ Who makes us Children of God and Heirs to the Kingdom of Heaven through Baptism. May is a creature. A most wonderful and holy creature - but, she is not God. Here is a link that may prove helpful: catholic.com/library/Saint_Worship.asp

I am not saying it is idolatry.

You will not have been the first to say so, JonNC! So, let’s just address it and move forward. Idolatry is specifically condemned numerous times in the Bible. By idolatry is meant worship an image as God. Ancient Egypt at the time of the Hebrews was totally given over to worshiping animals and their king as gods. Once out of Egypt and sight of Moses, the Hebrews had Aaron create a golden calf idol for them to worship! The calf did not get them out of Egypt, but that did not seem to make any difference with these newly freed slaves.

Images (statues, pictures, etc.) of Mary and the Saints are memory joggers for folks such as myself whose memories have seen much better days! Catholic do not worship a statue but rather, recall the person depicted in the image. The statue is just stone or plaster - something that true idol worshipers don’t buy into. Look at people who worship the portrait of “George Washington” and his higher numerated friend “Benjamin Franklin”! If you destroy the paper those portraits are on - you have attacked their god! If you break a statue of Mary (assuming it is your statue and not the property of another) you have destroyed a sacred image - but, have not destroyed Mary.

I think you could say that Mary is the biggest friend of God… and the Saints are the lesser friends of God. Someone one honoring your Mother and honoring your friends does not take anything away from you, do they? The Saints are creatures, too. They were created the same way as every human being was created - and - that means they had Original Sin on their soul at the first moment of conception. The Catholic Church identifies these special Friends of God for the example they gave to us in cooperating with the Grace of God. The Church is saying, “Consider following the example of this person as they followed Christ every day carrying their cross as He instructed them to do.” These men and women lead a holy life - not through their own goodness - but by their cooperation with Grace.

I hope this was helpful.

God bless

 

[JonNC]

=tqualey;6872728I have enjoyed reading your responses and interactions with the other posters. Allow me to make a small contribution to one of the items you have questioned.

Hi Tom,
Always a pleasure to hear from you.

I guess the very first item to address is that Catholic do not worship Mary. Worship is due to God alone. Catholics do have a very special respect for Mary - and this can be found in Luke’s account of Mary’s visit to Elizabeth, “All generations will call me blessed…” (Luke 1:48)

Agreed, in every way. I share that respect.

It is clear Catholic teaching that Mary was created in the same manner as every other human being - the union of her father’s sperm with her mother’s egg. But, it does not end there! At the very instant of conception - unlike us - Mary was conceived WITHOUT Original Sin. So, according to the Divine Plan of God, His Son would have a pure and undefiled dwelling place (like the Ark of the Covenant) - and this time, it would be Mary’s womb. Mary was identified to be “…full of grace…” (Luke 1:28) and this is NOT by anything she did, but by the Power of God Who selected Mary for this special honor.

Again, I have no problem with this.

Now, the obvious question, JonNC, is that if God went to all this Effort … and selected Mary from all women (past, present and future) for such a tremendous honor - to be the Mother of God, doesn’t it make sense for us to honor her, too? But, don’t stop there! While Mary does not appear often in the Gospel accounts of Christ’s life, please take a look at the influence Mary has on her Son as shown in John 2:1-11. Mary comes to the resuce of this newly married couple by bringing their need to her Son. Now, a casual reading of these verses would give most readers the idea that Christ was not too enthuaistic about this activity (but, recall He is God and knew from all eternity that they would run out of wine and His Mother would step in to help.)

It could be argued that Christ could have done anything: from not allowing the feast to run low on wine or anything else - to totally ignoring His Mother’s request. So, with an infinite number of choices, look what God chose - to obey the request of His Mother. If we have any faith in the Words of Scripture to teach us lessons pleasing to God - then it would seem like going to Mary is a good ‘take home message’.

No disagreement. May I take the “take home message” as her words to the servants, “Do as He tells you”. ?

Again, it was Christ - NOT Mary - Who died for our sins. It is Christ Who makes us Children of God and Heirs to the Kingdom of Heaven through Baptism. May is a creature. A most wonderful and holy creature - but, she is not God. Here is a link that may prove helpful: catholic.com/library/Saint_Worship.asp

Tom, you don’t have to convince me that Catholics do not practice latria toward the Blessed Virgin.

You will not have been the first to say so, JonNC! So, let’s just address it and move forward. Idolatry is specifically condemned numerous times in the Bible. By idolatry is meant worship an image as God. Ancient Egypt at the time of the Hebrews was totally given over to worshiping animals and their king as gods. Once out of Egypt and sight of Moses, the Hebrews had Aaron create a golden calf idol for them to worship! The calf did not get them out of Egypt, but that did not seem to make any difference with these newly freed slaves.

Images (statues, pictures, etc.) of Mary and the Saints are memory joggers for folks such as myself whose memories have seen much better days! Catholic do not worship a statue but rather, recall the person depicted in the image. The statue is just stone or plaster - something that true idol worshipers don’t buy into. Look at people who worship the portrait of “George Washington” and his higher numerated friend “Benjamin Franklin”! If you destroy the paper those portraits are on - you have attacked their god! If you break a statue of Mary (assuming it is your statue and not the property of another) you have destroyed a sacred image - but, have not destroyed Mary.

Lutherans accept the early councils regarding iconoclasm. So, complete agreement.

I think you could say that Mary is the biggest friend of God… and the Saints are the lesser friends of God. Someone one honoring your Mother and honoring your friends does not take anything away from you, do they? The Saints are creatures, too. They were created the same way as every human being was created - and - that means they had Original Sin on their soul at the first moment of conception. The Catholic Church identifies these special Friends of God for the example they gave to us in cooperating with the Grace of God. The Church is saying, “Consider following the example of this person as they followed Christ every day carrying their cross as He instructed them to do.” These men and women lead a holy life - not through their own goodness - but by their cooperation with Grace.

No argument. In fact, as I said earlier, I find it appropriate, knowing that she and the saints prayer for the Church Militant, to ask God to listen to the prayers of His mother and the saints.
The only thing I’m looking for is a command that we invoke the saints directly, a promise that our doing so has grace attached to it, or an example of those in scripture doing so.
And as I said before, I can be convinced, based on Luke 15:7, where Christ clearly implies that the host of Heaven is in some way aware of events here, either directly or indirectly.
*"Just so, I tell you, **there will be more joy in heaven *over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance."

God bless

And His peace also with you,
Jon

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC,

To the best of my knowledge, there is NO command found in Scripture in the formulation you are seeking.

The only thing I’m looking for is a command that we invoke the saints directly, a promise that our doing so has grace attached to it, or an example of those in scripture doing so.

But, as you know, JonNC, the Canon was not developed until about the year 400AD - and that has always made me wonder what those early Christians -you know, the First Catholics - did. But, then as I study history a little more, I realize that it is the Apostolic Traditions (not the traditions of men) that saw the Early Church through all of those persecutions back then - and - still is seeing Christ’s Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) through today.

Trying to find Scripture to back up everything is, honestly, an abuse of Scripture. The Bible is not a catechism - the Bible does not contain everything Jesus said and did (John 21: 24-25 tells us that everything in Scripture is true - but Scripture does not have it all!)

24
It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, 14 and we know that his testimony is true.
25
There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

The ‘whole loaf’ does not exist in Scripture! The quest for the authority to pray to the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Saints goes to Apostolic Tradition. You really have received excellent material from several posters - and while you say you know what is being said and you do not disagree … think about your car! Is the maker of your car going to strike you down for not changing the oil? No. Do you think you would do better if you did change your oil and followed the RECOMMENDED MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE … yeah, probably so. I guess if you are not driving far, you can confine yourself to only the commands… but, there really is a Big Road out there

God bless

 

[JonNC]

=tqualey;6873207]
Hi, JonNC,

To the best of my knowledge, there is NO command found in Scripture in the formulation you are seeking.

But, as you know, JonNC, the Canon was not developed until about the year 400AD - and that has always made me wonder what those early Christians -you know, the First Catholics - did. But, then as I study history a little more, I realize that it is the Apostolic Traditions (not the traditions of men) that saw the Early Church through all of those persecutions back then - and - still is seeing Christ’s Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) through today.

Trying to find Scripture to back up everything is, honestly, an abuse of Scripture. The Bible is not a catechism - the Bible does not contain everything Jesus said and did (John 21: 24-25 tells us that everything in Scripture is true - but Scripture does not have it all!)

True enough, Tom. And I as a Lutheran, who accepts the early councils and creeds as highly authoratative, am not unwilling to look at Tradition. So, my only point is, and I mirror the concerns of the reformers, admittedly, belief in and practice of invocation, without that command ought not be required.
While I see no command to do so, neither do I see a prohibition of it. I am willing to even defend the possibility that invocation is possible, based on scripture, and Tradition, and the long practice of it to the comfort of those who do.

The ‘whole loaf’ does not exist in Scripture! The quest for the authority to pray to the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Saints goes to Apostolic Tradition.

I can accept that the authority can come from Tradition. What I question is if the binding of the conscience of the believer can, on a matter not directly related to salvation, come from Tradition.

His peace,
Jon

 

[Cinette]

Apparently, the way you are phrasing it, that would also mean God did not even need to send His son. He simply declares us righteous, or simply makes us righteous, and He’s done with it. Obviously, He intends for us to love Him, and by the good works we do, love our neighbors. He sends His Spirit to us, as sinners, to grow in grace and sanctification.

…

What happens to a baby if it dies immediately after baptism? What happened to the thief on the cross? The baby is saved by the forgiveness of sins in Baptism. The thief was justified by his faith (Catholics might reasonable say a Baptism of desire). He had no time for santification, but there is no doubt that he went to Heaven. If I am blessed with the time here on Earth to follow His commands, I must do so, not because my works save me, but instead in response to His grace that saves me.
Scripture relates that: 1) the just shall live by faith, and 2) that faith without works (I’ll stretch this and call it sanctification) is dead.

Failure to do as Christ commands means one of two things, either I never has faith to start with, I exercised my free will to reject Him through repeated and unrepented sin, in which case my faith is dead, and no longer a saving faith.

Jon

*I enjoyed your post Jon. I immediately thought about the labourers who were hired at the last moment and that we need to be poor in Spirit and realise that without the Lord we are helpless. We need the “fuel” of the Holy Spirit. I remember once I was asked about the role of the Holy Spirit in our lives and I thought of my computer without an operating system…

Cinette*

 

[benedictus2]

But no one will be damned because they made an intellectual mistake.

Edwin

That is true if the mistake is an honest intellectual mistake.

The temptation however to rationalize a mistake is very strong in all of us so honesty is very important.

A CAF member once said in a post " I cannot and will not convert to Catholicism". and I often wondered about that statement. What if the truth is already staring one in the face and one recognizes it as truth such that it can no longer be rationalized away. Can one still say that one cannot and will not convert? Is that the kind of transgression against the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Truth) that cannot be forgiven?

There is the question of how much of one’s belief is retained by sheer will power because said belief is convenient and panders to the ego?

 

[shaky]

But that is all very nebulous. The reformers tried to make a bit more sense of that by this two step stage of justification and sanctification which as I have shown above shows some inconsistencies.

But the question is not whether God’s declaration is a “merely” but whether this is in fact the case, “that God declares you righteous but leaves you unrighteous.”

Do you really think that God lies to himself and says we are clean when in fact we are putrid underneath?

I have read a few commentaries from former Lutherans and Protestants in general and everyone seems to agree that this declaration is forensic. I would think that Beckwith, McGrath and Mascall would know what they are talking about with regards the nature of justification for protestants.

Which is why I keep asking this question: If at justification when you are declared righteous you are actually considered righteous, what then is the need for the second stage of sanctification when you are already righteous?

Can’t you see the inconsistency there?

First off the error in that question is that I will never say I am righteous. But neither will I say that God will say I am righteous while underneath I remain the same miserable rotten smelly sinner that I am.

Rather God will set about **making **me righteous by his grace such that when He says I am righteous I am actually so because His grace has caused this transformation in me and made me so.

But even from this statement I can already see the same problem I have outlined above.

Luther says there is no justification without sanctification. But according to Reformed theology, Justification precedes sanctification.

So again, a man is justified then immediately dies. Does that mean that he is already sanctified? Or does it leave him still at the justified stage? If still at the justified stage, since sanctification has not yet happened (he is dead after all), will he go to heaven?

If you say yes, then that means he goes to heaven just at the justified stage.

If someone therefore can enter heaven at the justified stage then what is there a need for sanctification?

But if you say no, he needs to be sanctified, then what is point of justification when you can very well die justified and still go to hell?

What I am trying to illustrate here is the inconsistency, the holes in this kind of sundered theology.

But the point is do you think that Christ commands for no reason? He says do good just because…?

This is why Catholic theology makes so much more sense. We do not say “Oh because Christ said so”. It would be like Christ said “hop on this merry go round that goes nowhere because I said so”. No doubt we do things because God said so and should do at God’s decree. But God does not leave it at that. Christ said so for a reason. And that reason is knowable.

Hi benedictus

How i see it we are being Justified Every day till the day you Die. You take up You cross
and deny yourself daily following Jesus Christ. we obey Jesus Christ and his Commands when we are tested and fail and fall. we repent . Get up and carry on following Jesus. what ever we failed on before we will be tested again and again untill we dont fail on the tests and we have Overcome and are sanctified. Then we preserve till the End.

 

[schaick]

For the Protestants on board, I have a few questions which I hope will be answered in a rational-logical manner.

1. How do you know when you are interpreting scripture correctly? Note that I did not ask what you may believe a particular passage to mean.
2. When people differ over scriptural interpretation, and all are relying on the Holy Spirit for guidance, how is it determined which person is really being guided? And equally important, who makes the authoritative determination? Let me offer a short example:

A Lutheran walks up to me with an opened Bible, and declares “Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation”. He then points to various scriptural verses which seem to support his doctrinal position.

A Baptist walks up to me with an opened Bible, and declares “Baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation.” He then points to various scriptural verses which seem to support his doctrinal position.

How is it determined which person is correct? And, who decides?

It seems to me that if God’s Truth for man is to be known solely from the Bible, then there must be some sort of mechanism or system whereby men can know this Truth with absolute certainty.

---

I have been to many Bible study groups, same denomination and different denominations- basically there is one interpretation with many celebrations within that one interpretation.

Where there has been a “different” interpretation usually is simply a deeper fuller understanding of the Bible passage.

Is it correct for where you are in your life, your maturity level as a Christian? The more you read the Bible the more it answers questions for your daily life.

In our groups we discover that the most discussion, best discussions come when we each have a different fuller and deeper understanding of the passages.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi benedictus

How i see it we are being Justified Every day till the day you Die. You take up You cross
and deny yourself daily following Jesus Christ. we obey Jesus Christ and his Commands when we are tested and fail and fall. we repent . Get up and carry on following Jesus. what ever we failed on before we will be tested again and again untill we dont fail on the tests and we have Overcome and are sanctified. Then we preserve till the End.

You are right on the mark there in the sense that every moment of every day, God gives you and everyone else the grace to be conformed to image of His Son. There is no divide between justification and sanctification. How we respond to this grace makes the difference.

 

[benedictus2]

 Apparently, the way you are phrasing it, that would also mean God did not even need to send His son. He simply declares us righteous, or simply makes us righteous, and He's done with it.

Exactly! And that is precisely the point that Beckwith made with his analysis, that if justification is forensic there was no need for the life, death and resurrection of Christ.
And no, forensic justification does not mean we are made righteous, we are only declared righteous but remain unrighteous inside.

Obviously, He intends for us to love Him, and by the good works we do, love our neighbors. He sends His Spirit to us, as sinners, to grow in grace and sanctification.

Yes he does indeed, that is why forensic justification is a completely untenable proposition.

The only split, as you call it, is a understanding of what God does - justification being monergistic - and how we respond - sanctification being generally synergistic.

No I don’t think it’s just that. The split though notional is there because of this notion of forensic justification which necessitates this split.

And this expectation to grow in grace is different how from what I said above?

It is not different to the process you call sanctification. But since Luther holds this as a separate process to justification, that separation is what makes for an inconsistent theology, as I have show above. Which is why, prior to the reformation, the Church never held such a distinction.

 

[benedictus2]

 Sounds like you are talking about me. :blush:

What!?!! You too! I sure hope there are not more of us out there.

Why? Are are you not simply made righteous? If righteousness is infused in you, and you are a new creature, why the need for Purgatory? I think the answer will be that you, like me, know that while grace saves us, we both remain influenced by sin, and as Paul says, “the good that I would, that I do not, the wrong I would not, that I do”.

Because this process of making you righteous, is usually not completed in this lifetime. Many of us will die in sin but not necessarily die in mortal sin. Any incomplete cleansing will be completed after death.
The state to which we are called in heaven is so much more glorious. We need to be perfected. That process continues after death until all self-love is purge from our souls and we are at last perfect as the Father is perfect.

Then you would agree with me that it is by grace that you are growing ever more toward being conformed Him, that your own efforts, without Grace, are worthless in His eyes.

Totally. I would not even have efforts to speak of were it not for grace for it is grace infused in the soul that causes transformation into the image of Christ.
But none of my efforts are worthless in His eyes for my efforts no matter how piddly are in response to His love.
God is such a tender Father that the little weed flowers that we pick from His garden, which He tended Himself, pleases Him. We give nothing that we have not received from Him and yet this fact of offering back to Him what we have received is what keeps us in what Fr Barron calls the loop of grace.

And this is precisely why “there is no justification without sanctification”. I am still a sinner. I still need the sacraments as a means of grace, to grow and become evermore conformed to Him.

But then I go back to the problem of people who died after being justified since they have not yet been sanctified. To the Lutheran understanding, these are two distinct and separate processes.

And yet Pope Benedict seems to think it not so innovative as Catholics once thought

Perhaps in some aspects. One cannot say that the entire Lutheran understanding of justification is up the creek. There will always be points of congruence.
There was another poster here who used as his signature a line from the JDDJ which made it look like as if Pope Benedict said Martin Luther is right. But on closer examination, he conveniently cut off the rest of the sentence and the paragraph.

Are you under the impression that I believe that once we are justified, I cannot lose that justification?

No I do not believe that you believe that. That Lutherans believe in sanctification I think attests to that. However, I think the legalistic approach to justification is what gave birth to the “Once Saved Always Saved’ concept of salvation.

Held blameless, but not completely conformed. Saint and sinner

Well this is where this “justified then dies’ problem comes in again.
If one is held blameless but not conformed to the image of Christ can he go to heaven un-conformed to the image of Christ? Or is it a requirement that everyone who goes to heaven be conformed to the image of Christ?
So I am back to this question. If being held blameless (justified) is enough to get you through the pearly gates, then what is the point of needing to be conformed to the image of Christ. Unless of course you say that if you have been justified and dies, you somehow at the point of death, all of a sudden get conformed to the image of Christ.

To become more Christlike. To follow His commands. To care for the least of His children.

But if he is already held blameless, what is the point of being Christlike, of being conformed to the image of Christ? Is being blameless not enough then?

 

[benedictus2]

 What happens to a baby if it dies immediately after baptism? What happened to the thief on the cross? The baby is saved by the forgiveness of sins in Baptism.

Aaah but this is the beauty of Catholic theology. It is integrated and all the pieces fit.

Once a person is baptized, he is both justified and sanctified because we do not make a distinction between these two. If one dies straight after baptism, He goes to heaven because at that point by the power of this sacrament, He has been conformed to the image of Christ. He is completely a new creation. The declaration that one is just is made on account of the fact that one has been made just i.e. conformed to the image of Christ.

The thief was justified by his faith (Catholics might reasonable say a Baptism of desire). He had no time for santification, but there is no doubt that he went to Heaven.

But by baptism, he has been sanctified. As I said above, Baptism effects both justification and sanctification.

If I am blessed with the time here on Earth to follow His commands, I must do so, not because my works save me, but instead in response to His grace that saves me.

I on the other hand would say: If I am blessed with the time here on earth to follow His commands, I do so for love of Him who has loved me first and continues to love me. Love is work - mighty hard work (as displayed on the cross) so works does save.

Why do I say this? Because Love and Obedience are both made manifest in works. Faith and Hope will disappear when we get to heaven, for that which we held only by faith is then fully revealed and that which we hoped for will have come true. But Love, as St Paul says, remains. So when we do works of Love we participate in the Divine life because God IS love and any partificipation in the Divine Life is salvific. So yes, works do save because Love is work. And this is the way that God has willed salvation to be accomplished.

 

[Tommy555]

Tradition? My wife and I are consistent watchers of EWTN. We decided to go to a Catholic mass today. I would say that 75 per cent of the mass was conducted by women, with the exception of the sermon and Eucharistic prayer. Women were the readers, led the singing, and assisted with Communion. Is this the norm? From what Scripture or tradition is this from? If this is acceptable practice, I am not sure I could become Catholic for that fact alone.

 

[Cinette]

I have been to many Bible study groups, same denomination and different denominations- basically there is one interpretation with many celebrations within that one interpretation.

Where there has been a “different” interpretation usually is simply a deeper fuller understanding of the Bible passage.

Is it correct for where you are in your life, your maturity level as a Christian? The more you read the Bible the more it answers questions for your daily life.

In our groups we discover that the most discussion, best discussions come when we each have a different fuller and deeper understanding of the passages.

Sounds like emotion-based to me! Could that be the case?

 

[Cinette]

Tradition? My wife and I are consistent watchers of EWTN. We decided to go to a Catholic mass today. I would say that 75 per cent of the mass was conducted by women, with the exception of the sermon and Eucharistic prayer. Women were the readers, led the singing, and assisted with Communion. Is this the norm? From what Scripture or tradition is this from? If this is acceptable practice, I am not sure I could become Catholic for that fact alone.

*Tommy I would say that the reason why you saw so many women involved is because more women attend Mass and therefore become involved. Perhaps men think this is a woman’s role!! We women are nurturers and perhaps more conscious of the need to be spiritual!! ??? At the parishes I attend there are men involved.

One of our deacons is a very macho type and one would not expect him to be so devout and deeply spiritual, in a way. He conducts a workshop each week and recently he was attacked while asleep when a robber took a knife from the kitchen and plunged it into his back - he bled a lot and fortunately his spine was not injured. After 3 days in hospital he left the hospital at 5pm and at 6.30pm was at the weekly workshop. More men are becoming involved and more men are attending the workshop.

blessings
Cinette*

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Schaick,

This sounds very good … would you kindly provide an example of a correct interpretation (that does differ from the ‘correct interpretation’ of another group - this is how we can stay on course for this thread…) that has developed into a fuller view through time and discussion.

I have been to many Bible study groups, same denomination and different denominations- basically there is one interpretation with many celebrations within that one interpretation.

Where there has been a “different” interpretation usually is simply a deeper fuller understanding of the Bible passage.

Is it correct for where you are in your life, your maturity level as a Christian? The more you read the Bible the more it answers questions for your daily life.

In our groups we discover that the most discussion, best discussions come when we each have a different fuller and deeper understanding of the passages.

The development of insight is expected in all aspects of human growth and development - this is true for our progress in the Christian Life. What I would find interesting would be an example of where there was one way of looking at a verse describing a scriptural reality - and then years that same verse is recognized as something quite different.

For example, in John 20:20-22 we have Christ specifically giving His Apostles the delegated power of God to forgive the sins of men. My understanding is that protestants do not take this literally… and none have ever taken the discussion on in such a way so that years later they would say, “Thourgh our progress in understanding the Word of God, Christ’s words are to be taken literally.”

I would find using this or any example you wish - showing actually progress from an earlier understanding to a later understanding where the two, when viewed side-by-side, are the oppisite.

Thanks and God bless