If justification begins at Baptism, how do you explain St. Cornelius?

[De_Maria]

What Aelred Minor said. Forget about the New Testament. Just look at the Old Testament. It is chock-full of references to just men and women and about the characteristics of the “just” verses the “unjust.” The word is being used in different ways. None of these people were “justified,” as Aelred says elsewhere, in the fullest sense of the term, which only became possible with the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ. The former sense was that a person is “just” if they keep God’s Law, the 10 Commandments and the 613 mitzvot, that is if they lived “just” and “God-fearing” lives, which indeed they were if they were keeping God’s Commandments. However, they were not justified in the sense we used the term, that is, they did not have the indwelling of the Holy Trinity who comes to us at Holy Baptism, washing away all our sins in the Blood of the Lamb and making us true Children of God in Christ, and co-heirs with Him of eternal life. They did not receive sanctifying grace, which allows one to enter Heaven and without which nobody can enter Heaven. Gotta watch the same word being used in different ways. They’re tricky. “Salvation” is another big one. You can see “salvation” or “saved” all over the OT too, but it doesn’t mean what we mean by “salvation.”

That’s my take on it anyway.

Yes, but we shouldn’t have private takes on the matter. We should have the Church’s take. And the Church teaches that the PROCESS of justification begins before the washing away of all our sins by the Blood of the Lamb in Baptism. First we have to turn to God, begin the journey called the Purgative Way and then, study to show ourselves approved (RCIA), THEN ask Church for Baptism AND THEN continue on the journey of justification by faith and works AND THEN continue on the journey of justification by faith APART FROM WORKS in the Sacraments, (Confirmation, Communion, Anointing, Confession). Although really, all the Sacraments wash us with Sanctifying grace and so all of them are occasions of justification/sanctification.

Anyway, its a process. The OT had the same process. Jesus added the Sacraments to that process.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

I can’t say if I understand you fully or not. But I think Akin’s article explains that when he said: “the brink of our initial justification, which is received either when baptism takes place (or before, through the baptism of desire)” and “Our justification begins when we initially receive righteousness at the beginning of our lives as Christians.”

I didn’t see that in the article. I see where he says that justification begins at Baptism.

When one turns toward God, that is in a sense the “beginning” of justification,

Agreed. That is what I read in the CoTrent and in the CCC.

sealed and made complete at the rite of baptism,

I don’t know about complete, because the Church teaches that justification is a life long process (CoTrent 6, Chapter 10)

even though one could say they had the baptism of desire from the start.

I don’t understand Baptism of desire the same way. As I see, it only applies to those who died before they were Baptized. But that is another question.

It can be confusing because Catholics also see the whole of justification as a process, not a completed event reducible to an hour, minute, and second.

EXACTLY!!!

I can’t speak entirely for Jimmy, but when he says baptism is “the means” and includes a baptism of desire, that would encompass Cornelius’ desire to obey God’s word

I don’t see it.

and receive the appropriate sacrament of incorporation from the moment he turned to God.

That sounds like Protestant doctrine actually. If all one needs is Baptism of desire, then what is the need for the Sacrament? Many Protestants deny the effectiveness of the Sacrament.

Therefore, the Church teaches that the Baptism of desire is only effective upon those who desire the Sacrament but die before they receive it. Therefore, this does not explain that the process of justification begins before Baptism.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[dcana]

Yes, but we shouldn’t have private takes on the matter. We should have the Church’s take. And the Church teaches that the PROCESS of justification begins before the washing away of all our sins by the Blood of the Lamb in Baptism. First we have to turn to God, begin the journey called the Purgative Way and then, study to show ourselves approved (RCIA), THEN ask Church for Baptism AND THEN continue on the journey of justification by faith and works AND THEN continue on the journey of justification by faith APART FROM WORKS in the Sacraments, (Confirmation, Communion, Anointing, Confession). Although really, all the Sacraments wash us with Sanctifying grace and so all of them are occasions of justification/sanctification.

Anyway, its a process. The OT had the same process. Jesus added the Sacraments to that process.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Certainly, but when I said “my take” I meant that this is the way I understand Church teaching on the matter. I hope I didn’t say anything different than what the Church believes. I don’t think I did.

Yes, the process of Justification does begin before baptism but Justification itself only takes place at baptism - through faith, of course, but not faith alone. The repentance for past sins, acts of faith and charity, and the other things that Trent describes which are necessary for baptism are, in fact, the “works” being referred to when we say that “we are justified by faith and works” and when Protestants say “we are justified by faith alone.” This initial turning to God and these other acts are themselves the work of God’s grace in us. When Paul says we are justified by faith apart from works, he is referring specifically to the works of the Old Testament Law, circumcision probably being the most prominent of them, which, as Paul says, do not justify anyone. It is the grace of God that justifies a person. The necessity of good works after Baptism is another matter altogether. Many Catholic apologists say that the correct answer, the true Biblical answer, to the perennial Fundamentalist question, “Have you been saved?” is "I am saved. I am being saved. And I hope to be saved. (which we certainly will be provided that we persevere in faith, hope, and charity, of course). I guess you could also say, “I am saved, I am being saved, and I hope to be saved when I am judged by the Just Judge according to my works.” “I am saved” refers to our initial justification, when we were born again by water and the Spirit. “I am being saved” refers to the ongoing process of justification that takes place by faith and good works, which Paul exhorts us to “work out with fear and trembling.” “I hope to be saved” refers to our hope that we will cooperate with God’s grace for the rest of our lives, staying in a state of grace, thereby being “given eternal life” “according to our works” “by patience in well-doing seeking glory and immortality” at our particular judgement. I took this from Romans 2 (See below). It is also a statement of our sure trust that God will indeed be faithful to His promises of eternal life. Any time the Scriptures speak about someone entering Heaven (or not) when they die, they always talk about good works. So, the Bible says that we will be judged by our deeds:

“For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.” (Romans 2)

"The hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment. " (John 5)

“Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done.” (Revelation 22)

When the Lord comes again in glory, the vast proportion of humanity will have lived and died. According to Jesus, He will “repay every one for what he has done” that is, what they did, good and bad, during their lives. For the relative few (although it will probably be 7 billion + ) who will be alive on That Day, they will be judged based on what they have done up to that point in their lives.

I’m not sure what you mean by studying to “show ourselves approved.”

Yes, justification is a process. We become initially justified at Baptism and then we continue to grow in justification throughout our lives by good works, the partaking of the Sacraments, etc. This is also called “sanctification.” Some Protestants believe this, others do not.

That’s my take on it, anyway.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Thank you. That agrees with what I’m saying. He was not justified in the FULLEST SENSE. But he was justified in some sense. Therefore, he was well on the way along the process of justification.

Exactly! My problem with that is that he and others take his “protestant sensitivity” to be universal and begin speaking in this sense to everyone. Causing a great deal of confusion in the Faithful, because they are never told that Mr. Akins and company are simply inviting Protestants to the fold.

I’ve seen articles by Akins and others claiming that the Church teaches “Grace alone” and “Faith alone” and Christ alone". As though the differences between Luther, Calvin and the Church were merely semantics.

But it is not a matter of semantics. They are true qualitative and material differences in the understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I have every respect in the world for devout Protestants. But it does not change the fact that they are practicing a deficient form of the Gospel.

Anyway, it sounds to me as though you and I differ only in semantics. Let me know if you agree.

As I said, that’s just confusing. The Catholic Church teaches that the process of justification begins at conversion.

I don’t condemn them. But if they continue teaching this and other novelties, they are not orthodox. Errors are errors. St. Cyprian found that out when he, unintentionally, was teaching unorthodox and heretical things and the Church came looking for him to correct him. He corrected his error and became a Saint.

How many others refused to correct their errors? And how can anyone correct their error if no one informs them?

These folks need to be stopped from falsely presenting certain aspects of Catholicism. That is my opinion.

And if it turns out that I’m the one who is wrong, I’ll gladly stop. But so far, the evidence points the other way.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I think you, I, and Mr. Akin all have about the same understanding of justification. Same with Pope Benedict, who you would have to include in your “others” who say that formula like “faith alone” can be understood in an orthodox Catholic way. The thing is, it’s

A) Not actually understood in an orthodox way by many Protestants and
B) A very misleading and unbiblical term, considering that the only place in the Bible the formula occurs is where it is rejected in James.

Therefore the term should generally be avoided.

This is the impression I’ve gotten from Jimmy Akin on the matter of sola fidei.

Lay “experts” are not inherently above criticism, but if they are very experience and well versed and respected in a certain subject it would be healthy to at least be very cautious about it. In this case it seems to me that you are making a mountain out of what is not even a molehill and potentially turning people away from an author whose reflections on justification are particularly helpful.

 

[Margie9]

“God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.” (Catechism 1257)

Because God is not bound by Hi sacraments, He makes
the grace of salvation available to all in ways unknown to us.

This is the basis for the Church’s teaching on “Baptism of
desire” (Catechism, 1258-60, 1281). This occurs, for
example, when one seeks Baptism but dies first, or when one
dies without explicit knowledge of Christ, but would have
embraced the truth had it been presented. Only God can judge
their souls.

 

[Benadam]

Isn’t justification tied to original sin? We destroyed the Original Justice that characterized the relationship between God and man and creation and man. I think unless original sin is removed the return to a state of original justice is impossible. So, it seems to me that a person who has already begun the process of justification has already had the spiritual consequences of original sin removed.:twocents:

 

[dcana]

Originally Posted by De Maria
Thank you. That agrees with what I’m saying. He was not justified in the FULLEST SENSE. But he was justified in some sense. Therefore, he was well on the way along the process of justification.

Exactly! My problem with that is that he and others take his “protestant sensitivity” to be universal and begin speaking in this sense to everyone. Causing a great deal of confusion in the Faithful, because they are never told that Mr. Akins and company are simply inviting Protestants to the fold.

I’ve seen articles by Akins and others claiming that the Church teaches “Grace alone” and “Faith alone” and Christ alone". As though the differences between Luther, Calvin and the Church were merely semantics.

But it is not a matter of semantics. They are true qualitative and material differences in the understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I have every respect in the world for devout Protestants. But it does not change the fact that they are practicing a deficient form of the Gospel.

Anyway, it sounds to me as though you and I differ only in semantics. Let me know if you agree.

As I said, that’s just confusing. The Catholic Church teaches that the process of justification begins at conversion.

I don’t condemn them. But if they continue teaching this and other novelties, they are not orthodox. Errors are errors. St. Cyprian found that out when he, unintentionally, was teaching unorthodox and heretical things and the Church came looking for him to correct him. He corrected his error and became a Saint.

How many others refused to correct their errors? And how can anyone correct their error if no one informs them?

These folks need to be stopped from falsely presenting certain aspects of Catholicism. That is my opinion.

And if it turns out that I’m the one who is wrong, I’ll gladly stop. But so far, the evidence points the other way.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria, would you re-posting? I think you are responding to my post here but I don’t see your original post or what I wrote. I’m not sure what happened.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I didn’t see that in the article. I see where he says that justification begins at Baptism.

Keyword search the article for what I quoted.

I don’t know about complete, because the Church teaches that justification is a life long process (CoTrent 6, Chapter 10)

I meant the completion of initial justification. “Repent and be baptized” in one perspective or another, are the beginning. For some, repentance comes first chronologically. For others, baptism comes first chronologically. I don’t see too much value in trying to absolutize one or the other’s chronological position when both really mark the “beginning.”

That sounds like Protestant doctrine actually. If all one needs is Baptism of desire, then what is the need for the Sacrament?

But if you don’t believe in the need for the rite of the sacrament, you don’t have the desire in the first place. So it’s impossible to say “I have the desire, therefore I don’t need the rite.”

 

[De_Maria]

Certainly, but when I said “my take” I meant that this is the way I understand Church teaching on the matter. I hope I didn’t say anything different than what the Church believes. I don’t think I did.

I don’t think so. I was referring to those who say that the process of justification begins in Baptism.

Yes, the process of Justification does begin before baptism

Agreed. In fact, that is the point of this thread.

but Justification itself only takes place at baptism - through faith, of course, but not faith alone.

Agreed.

The repentance for past sins, acts of faith and charity, and the other things that Trent describes which are necessary for baptism are, in fact, the “works” being referred to when we say that “we are justified by faith and works” and when Protestants say “we are justified by faith alone.”

I think I agree. But it sounds as though you might be equating faith and works with faith alone and if you are, then we don’t agree.

This initial turning to God and these other acts are themselves the work of God’s grace in us.

Exactly!

When Paul says we are justified by faith apart from works, he is referring specifically to the works of the Old Testament Law, circumcision probably being the most prominent of them, which, as Paul says, do not justify anyone. It is the grace of God that justifies a person.

I have a thread dealing with that question on the CA right here.

The point I am trying to make is succinctly expressed by St. Paul in Romans 2:13 and Romans 3:28:
Romans 2:13
King James Version (KJV)
13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Romans 3:28
King James Version (KJV)
28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

In other words, we are not justified BY ANYTHING WE MIGHT DO. NADA. See also Titus 3:5.

But unless we keep the Commandments, we won’t be justified by God.

Works don’t justify, God justifies those who obey Him.

The necessity of good works after Baptism is another matter altogether. Many Catholic apologists say that the correct answer, the true Biblical answer, to the perennial Fundamentalist question, “Have you been saved?” is "I am saved. I am being saved. And I hope to be saved. (which we certainly will be provided that we persevere in faith, hope, and charity, of course). I guess you could also say, “I am saved, I am being saved, and I hope to be saved when I am judged by the Just Judge according to my works.”

I think both are correct, but I prefer the second one based upon the Apostle’s statement:
1 Corinthians 4:3-5
King James Version (KJV)
3But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.

4For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

CONT’D

 

[De_Maria]

CONT’D

“I am saved” refers to our initial justification, when we were born again by water and the Spirit. “I am being saved” refers to the ongoing process of justification that takes place by faith and good works, which Paul exhorts us to “work out with fear and trembling.” “I hope to be saved” refers to our hope that we will cooperate with God’s grace for the rest of our lives, staying in a state of grace, thereby being “given eternal life” “according to our works” “by patience in well-doing seeking glory and immortality” at our particular judgement. I took this from Romans 2 (See below). It is also a statement of our sure trust that God will indeed be faithful to His promises of eternal life. Any time the Scriptures speak about someone entering Heaven (or not) when they die, they always talk about good works. So, the Bible says that we will be judged by our deeds:

“For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.” (Romans 2)

"The hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment. " (John 5)

“Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done.” (Revelation 22)

When the Lord comes again in glory, the vast proportion of humanity will have lived and died. According to Jesus, He will “repay every one for what he has done” that is, what they did, good and bad, during their lives. For the relative few (although it will probably be 7 billion + ) who will be alive on That Day, they will be judged based on what they have done up to that point in their lives.

I’m not sure what you mean by studying to “show ourselves approved.”

Yes, justification is a process. We become initially justified at Baptism and then we continue to grow in justification throughout our lives by good works, the partaking of the Sacraments, etc. This is also called “sanctification.” Some Protestants believe this, others do not.

That’s my take on it, anyway.

Ok. Now I understand what you mean by “initial justification”. I think many misunderstand that term to mean that the process of justification begins at Baptism. So, I don’t use it. I say “the process of justification begins at Conversion”. And we are justified at Baptism and continue to be justified throughout our lives.

Anyway, based upon your further explanation, I believe we agree.

Based on this, I’d like to invite you to discuss “merit” with me. I’ve heard many Catholics claim that there is absolutely no merit in our works “before” Baptism (i.e. justification). I strongly disagree. I don’t have time to make the thread right now, I’m traveling and I just stopped at Mickey D’s to check for responses. But I’ll have time tonight and I’ll come back and post the link.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

I think you, I, and Mr. Akin all have about the same understanding of justification.

No, I don’t think so. At least, not from what I’ve read.
1st. It is Catholic doctrine, that before justification, there is no merit in our good works.
2nd. If the converted have not begun to be justified, and God has not imbued their works with merit, then how do they fulfill the requirement to be baptized.
3rd. Because to be baptized, you must do certain good works, one of which is to repent of your sins, the other is to keep the Commandments. Unless you do these things, you can’t be Baptized (Trent 6, chapter 6).
4. And finally, one is not baptized without faith in God. And that is also a good work. It is the root and foundation of justification (Trent 6, chapter 8).

1. Nor does baptism of desire come about before Sacramental Baptism. It comes about “without Sacramental Baptism” after one dies.

So, no, if you agree with Mr. Akin, then you and I don’t understand Catholic doctrine the same way.

Same with Pope Benedict, who you would have to include in your “others” who say that formula like “faith alone” can be understood in an orthodox Catholic way.

I believe you are talking about this statement by Pope Benedict:

…**For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. **…
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

Now compare to what James Akin says:
Many Protestants today realize that Catholics adhere to two of the important “solas” related to salvation sola gratia (by grace alone) and solo Christo (by Christ alone) but fewer are aware that Catholics can also accept the formula of justification sola fide (by faith alone), provided this phrase is properly understood.
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/SOLAFIDE.htm

But do you see the difference between what Pope Benedict said about Luther and sola fide and what James Akin said?

Akin says that Catholics can accept faith alone.
The Pope says that Luther would have been right IF.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

Akin is completely wrong.
The Pope is absolutely correct.

In addition, it is ludicrous to say that the Church teaches sola gratia and solo Christo. Those are the doctrines that Protestants use to attack the Church, the Papacy, the Communion of Saints and any other doctrine which says that we can honor those who are members of the body of Christ.

The Church teaches “all grace is due to God” and “united to Christ” or “imitation of Christ”. But not any of the solas. It is amazing to me that anyone would try to convince Catholics that the Church teaches that which She has for centuries fought.

The thing is, it’s

A) Not actually understood in an orthodox way by many Protestants and

1. Christianity is not understood in an orthodox way by Protestants.
2. The only way to understand “faith alone” in an orthodox way is to understand that “faith alone is dead” (St. James 2:17).

B) A very misleading and unbiblical term, considering that the only place in the Bible the formula occurs is where it is rejected in James.

Exactly! Therefore, we should not adopt it as Mr. Akin suggests.

Therefore the term should generally be avoided.

My thought exactly.

This is the impression I’ve gotten from Jimmy Akin on the matter of sola fidei.

Show me where you get that impression. Because it seems that James Akin not not only wants us to adopt Sola Fide, but Sola Gratia and Sola Deo Gloria.

Lay “experts” are not inherently above criticism, but if they are very experience and well versed and respected in a certain subject it would be healthy to at least be very cautious about it.

Why? I don’t care if I’m proven wrong. I follow Catholic doctrine. Not my own. However, if I’m right, they should change what they teach and follow the Catholic Church as well, don’t you think?

However, I’ve yet to be given a reason to believe that I’m wrong.

In this case it seems to me that you are making a mountain out of what is not even a molehill and potentially turning people away from an author whose reflections on justification are particularly helpful.

I don’t agree. I think good Catholics are being confused by these types of errors. And good Protestants are being invited to the Catholic Church under false pretenses. Therefore, I think it is a very big issue.

Here’s an example of a Catholic who is being confused by these type of errors:
dawn
Acolyte

Join Date
Dec 2008
Posts
60
works of no avail before justification
this thread is really hard for me to understand. i am constantly trying to be clear about this subject because i have a friend who frequently says things and implies salvation by faith alone…on a few of these posts i thought i read where we are saved by God’s grace then we do good works…that is exactly what my friend believes…we want to do good works because we are saved. i feel, and have always felt that it matters what we do here, and God does add that up… and, yes, of course we believe Jesus died for us and rose again, if we didn’t believe that first, none of this would matter anyway. .sorry for sounding so simple about this but it is confusing. dawn
catholicforum.com/forums/showthread.php?30048-Works-of-no-avail-before-justification&p=257219#post257219

Besides, I too was led astray at first. But then another Catholic set me straight about sola gratia. But not before many years of my believing it was Catholic doctrine.

So, yes, I think it is a very important question.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

“God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.” (Catechism 1257)

Because God is not bound by Hi sacraments, He makes
the grace of salvation available to all in ways unknown to us.

I agree.

This is the basis for the Church’s teaching on “Baptism of
desire” (Catechism, 1258-60, 1281). This occurs, for
example, when one seeks Baptism but dies first, or when one
dies without explicit knowledge of Christ, but would have
embraced the truth had it been presented. Only God can judge
their souls.

Agreed.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Isn’t justification tied to original sin? We destroyed the Original Justice that characterized the relationship between God and man and creation and man. I think unless original sin is removed the return to a state of original justice is impossible. So, it seems to me that a person who has already begun the process of justification has already had the spiritual consequences of original sin removed.:twocents:

I don’t think so. Original Sin is washed away by Sanctifying Grace in the Sacrament of Baptism.

But justification is the process of turning to God, learning to master oneself, despising one’s sins and seeking God in the Sacraments. It is a life long process.

That’s the way I understand it, in a nutshell.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Keyword search the article for what I quoted.

Ok. I see it. He says:
This take us to the brink of our initial justification, which is received either when baptism takes place (or before, through the baptism of desire).

But you see, there is no “before” Sacramental Baptism for the catechumen who has died before before Baptism. Since he died before Baptism, he never received Baptism and the Baptism of the Desire, in the after life is his Baptism.

In order for that statement to be correct, it should read:
This take us to the fullness of justification, which is received either when baptism takes place (through the baptism of desire if sacramental baptism does not take place).

Do you see what I mean?

I meant the completion of initial justification. “Repent and be baptized” in one perspective or another, are the beginning.

Repent is the beginning.
Being baptized is the fullness.

For some, repentance comes first chronologically.

That is correct. Trent 6, chapter 6:
… they, by turning themselves from the fear of divine justice, by which they are salutarily aroused, to consider the mercy of God, are raised to hope, trusting that God will be propitious to them for Christ’s sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice,* and on that account are moved against sin by a certain hatred and detestation, that is, by that repentance that must be performed before baptism;**[23] finally, when they resolve to receive baptism, to begin a new life and to keep the commandments of God.*

For others, baptism comes first chronologically.

Not according to the Church.

I don’t see too much value in trying to absolutize one or the other’s chronological position when both really mark the “beginning.”

I don’t know what to tell you. At every Mass, I vow to believe the Church. And I do believe in “absolute” truths which the Church teaches. I don’t think being wishy washy about this subject helps anyone. It just adds to the confusion.

But if you don’t believe in the need for the rite of the sacrament, you don’t have the desire in the first place. So it’s impossible to say “I have the desire, therefore I don’t need the rite.”

I don’t know what you mean.

1. If the “you” refers to me, I don’t remember saying such a thing.
2. If the “you” refers to some metaphorical person, I don’t remember discussing that possibility.

What I am talking about is people who teach that justification begins at Baptism. I don’t believe that is Catholic Teaching. Until someone shows me different, I’ll stand by that.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

De Maria, would you re-posting? I think you are responding to my post here but I don’t see your original post or what I wrote. I’m not sure what happened.

That was my response to Aelred Minor. Put the view on linear mode and check the first page. You’ll see that response is number 15.

Yesterday, 5:35 am
De Maria
Regular Member

Join Date: May 29, 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,430
Religion: Catholic
Re: If justification begins at Baptism, how do you explain St. Cornelius?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aelred Minor
Not in the fullest sense, they don’t. Indeed, dark Sheol, the Limbo of the Fathers, has generally been identified with the “bosom of Abraham” of the New Testament. So you could actually say Abraham (prior to Christ’s descent into hell) is a prime example of the unjustified just man, so to speak. St. Joseph would presumably be another prime example. Because they still had original sin, because they still had not been justified in the fullest sense, men and women who died without personal mortal sin before the death of Christ could not enter heaven until Christ redeemed them posthumously. I’ve never encountered so much as a speculation of such posthumous redemption after the Resurrection, presumably since baptism, whether by water, blood, or desire, would seem to be available to all people, depending on one’s interpretation of baptism of desire (and with the perennial difficulty of unbaptized babies)

Thank you. That agrees with what I’m saying. He was not justified in the FULLEST SENSE. But he was justified in some sense. Therefore, he was well on the way along the process of justification.

Quote:
Exactly. You are talking about, and you’ve found Church documents that seem to talk about justification as a long process beginning with the first actual graces given to prepare a person to be justified. Mr. Akin, on the other hand, seems to have been narrowing in on the moment the person is actually truely justified, with both original and personal sin forgiven. This narrower focus makes sense from Mr. Akin’s point of view as a convert from Protestantism and an apologist with a Protestant focus when it comes to matters of justification, since to most Protestants justification is when you are made right with God, and this does not happen in the fullest, most meaningful sense until baptism (of whatever sort).

Exactly! My problem with that is that he and others take his “protestant sensitivity” to be universal and begin speaking in this sense to everyone. Causing a great deal of confusion in the Faithful, because they are never told that Mr. Akins and company are simply inviting Protestants to the fold.

I’ve seen articles by Akins and others claiming that the Church teaches “Grace alone” and “Faith alone” and Christ alone". As though the differences between Luther, Calvin and the Church were merely semantics.

But it is not a matter of semantics. They are true qualitative and material differences in the understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I have every respect in the world for devout Protestants. But it does not change the fact that they are practicing a deficient form of the Gospel.

Anyway, it sounds to me as though you and I differ only in semantics. Let me know if you agree.

Quote:
Baptism could even be seen as the beginning of a process, in that we as Catholics don’t believe in Once Saved Always Saved. We need to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and for most of us baptism is only the beginning of that Christian life. That doesn’t mean in another sense the process of justification couldn’t be or hasn’t been spoken of as beginning with actual grace given in preparation for conversion and baptism, for adult converts to Christianity.

As I said, that’s just confusing. The Catholic Church teaches that the process of justification begins at conversion.

Quote:
Again, we need to keep our minds broad and realistic when approaching topics like these, otherwise we might find ourselves condemning good, orthodox writers who simply have a somewhat different emphasis and idiom.

I don’t condemn them. But if they continue teaching this and other novelties, they are not orthodox. Errors are errors. St. Cyprian found that out when he, unintentionally, was teaching unorthodox and heretical things and the Church came looking for him to correct him. He corrected his error and became a Saint.

How many others refused to correct their errors? And how can anyone correct their error if no one informs them?

These folks need to be stopped from falsely presenting certain aspects of Catholicism. That is my opinion.

And if it turns out that I’m the one who is wrong, I’ll gladly stop. But so far, the evidence points the other way.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[someguy114]

That is how come the Holy Spirit is necessary.

The Holy Spirit is of God.

1 John 4:6
We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

 

[De_Maria]

Hi again,

If you don’t mind, can we discuss “merit before baptism or justification” here on this thread. I think the topic is closely related.

You see, if our good works are of no merit until we are fully justified, then those who are catechumens can’t do anything to please God. Yet Trent 6 says:

CHAPTER VI
THE MANNER OF PREPARATION

Now, they [the adults] are disposed to that justice when, aroused and aided by divine grace, receiving faith by hearing,[21] they are moved freely toward God, believing to be true what has been divinely revealed and promised, especially that the sinner is justified by God by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;[22] and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves from the fear of divine justice, by which they are salutarily aroused, to consider the mercy of God, are raised to hope, trusting that God will be propitious to them for Christ’s sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice, and on that account are moved against sin by a certain hatred and detestation, that is, by that repentance that must be performed before baptism;[23] finally, when they resolve to receive baptism, to begin a new life and to keep the commandments of God.

Of this disposition it is written:
He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him;[24] and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee;[25] and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin;[26] and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost;[27] and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you;[28] finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.[29]

Therefore, once one is converted and begins to cooperate with the grace of God, he is being justified and merits congruently, according to the mercy and grace of God. In other words, because God has obligated Himself.
Exodus 20:6
And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

John 14:21
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Celtic_believer]

Scripture is very clear on when Cornelius was justified. In Acts 10:43-45 we read the account where Peter is preaching the gospel to Cornelius and those gathered in his house. Beginning with verse forty three it says," To Him all the prophets witness that through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard(believed) the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished,as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also." Then in verse forty eight it says that they were commanded to be baptized. In Acts 11:13-17 we read Peter’s account to those in Jerusalem. Starting with verse thirteen he says, " And he told us how he had seen an angel in his house,who said to him,’ Send men to Joppa,and call for Simon whose surname is Peter,who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved. And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning.Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ’ John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit. If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God? Cornelius and those gathered with him were ready to believe, they just didn’t know what to believe. But as soon as Peter spoke the words, " whoever believes in Him(Christ), they believed in their hearts, because the Holy Spirit had already began the work of preparing their hearts to believe and receive the truth. When they believed they, according to Peter, were " saved"(justified)! Because they truly were justified, there was no debate about whether they should be baptized, so when Peter commanded baptism, they gladly complied. Hope this helps.

 

[Truth_Seeking]

Oh, sorry. Perhaps a little bit of explanation is in order.

If we look at Acts 10, we find that this man, St. Cornelius, was devout and just, long before he even met St. Peter. Not only he, but his entire house and much of his cohort. And it is St. Peter who baptized them:
*
1There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,

2A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house*, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.
…
22And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.

Yet the claim is made that the process of justification does not begin until one is justified. In my opinion, the Church teaches differently, as I explained in the opening post.

What say you?

Sincerely,

De Maria

I cannot comprehend how
an adult would want to be baptised without necessary faith,
unless deceived or coerced.

Since Jesus is the author and perfecter of faith
it seems rather clear that faith should precede
a ceremony in which those who believe die with Christ to sin.

 

[fisherman_carl]

According to many Catholic Apologists, justification begins at Baptism. Here is a representative example by Jimmy Akins.

*"Chapter 6 [Trent] does into more detail about this turning to God, called a “preparation for justification,” and says…

…The Catholic church is thus firmly in line with Scripture when it says that baptism is the means by which we are incorporated into Christ, and thus that baptism is the means through which we receive justification."
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/JUSTIF.HTM*

I think Jimmy is talking about the initial justification that we receive at baptism, that is the forgiveness of sins and being declared just and becoming sons of God. He is not talking about the process of justification here, but the declaration from whence God makes his declaration come to pass. He does mention the process before baptism but does not call it the process of justification. People use different terminology to describe the same thing.

According to my understanding of Trent, justification begins at conversion, when God calls the man to turn to Him:

• CHAPTER V
  THE NECESSITY OF PREPARATION FOR JUSTIFICATION IN ADULTS, AND WHENCE IT PROCEEDS

It is furthermore declared that in adults **the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits on their part, they are called…

---

This is reflected in the catechism.

“1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.”

“1987 The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” and through Baptism.”
De Maria;8482962:

The CCC says the same:
1987 **The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” **

and through Baptism:34…

Notice how two ways are here identified, by the righteousness of God through faith AND through Baptism.

Agree with that. That is what I just said. However, faith and baptism are not two separate ways, but both are required for our justification.

1989 The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification

in accordance with Jesus’ proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.

This is talking about the process of justification.

So, the question remains. How do you explain St. Cornelius and many others, if “justification” begins at Baptism?

Sincerely,

De Maria

We are not officially justified until we have been baptized (or by baptism of desire). I would say that the process of justification is not the same before baptism as it is after baptism. Because after baptism we have sanctifying grace. Once we receive the Holy Spirit we are transformed into the image of Christ. Thus, the process of justification before baptism is necessary to bring us to what many would call our initial justification that is given to us at baptism. That is where our sins are forgiven and we are declared sons of God and welcomed into his family. It from there that God declares us justified and from there that he makes what he declares come to pass. He makes us just actually, not just legally.

The Church teaches that justification can only be effected in us at baptism. (see also Jn 3:5 - according to Christ’s precept- see below)

"Justification denotes that change or transformation in the soul by which man is transferred from the state of original sin, in which as a child of Adam he was born, to that of grace and Divine sonship through Jesus Christ, the second Adam, our Redeemer… In the New Law this justification cannot, according to Christ’s precept, be effected except at the fountain of regeneration, that is, by the baptism of water. "
newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm

1215 This sacrament [baptism] is also called “the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit,” for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one “can enter the kingdom of God.”

But, as you say, the process of justification begins before baptism, that is the grace for our conversion, faith, and repentance. I would agree with that. Yet, we are not declared justified until at baptism.

“you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

• 1 Cor 6:11