Imputation vs. Infusion of Grace

[anthony022071]

Protestant theology tends to speak of grace only as unmerited favor,whereas grace is also divine assistance for perseverence in holiness. That is,grace is God helping us to follow his commandments,which are good works that lead to salvation. Grace is not a free pass to salvation or a judicial decision that one is saved for eternity,it is the Holy Spirit in person,who purifies us and strengthens us to do God’s will,which is pleasing to God.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

A very nice, succinct, well-written post, Anthony.

Protestant theology tends to speak of grace only as unmerited favor,whereas grace is also divine assistance for perseverence in holiness. That is,grace is God helping us to follow his commandments,which are good works that lead to salvation. Grace is not a free pass to salvation or a judicial decision that one is saved for eternity,it is the Holy Spirit in person,who purifies us and strengthens us to do God’s will,which is pleasing to God.

 

[Carlan]

I have some real issues/disagreements with parts of this

Tell me about them Gurney!Carlan

 

[anthony022071]

Thanks,Gurney. I should have added that whatever God does,he does personally. There is nothing mechanical or systematic about grace and justification and salvation.

 

[Carlan]

Hey tsering,
You are misunderstanding it somewhat. For a Protestant, justification is an event when one is baptized and enters into the faith relationship with Christ. Catholics seperate justification into “initial” and “final” justification. The quote you have below, the first baptism and entrance into a relationship with the Lord that a Protestant would call justification, the Catholic calls “initial” justification. A spark is lit and sanctification follows through the sacraments, prayer, faith, and good works. As a person becomes sanctified and holy, he/she will die and have some satisifaction left for sins committed. Through purgatory satisfaction is met and the soul is finally cleansed and FINAL justification from Christ occurs, salvation. Does that make sense?

Gurney may I put it this way, Catholics are justified when Baptized, The Holy Spirit removes original (Adam’s) and all sin then fills us with sanctifying grace so that we become renewed, a new man. It is a life long process,If we persevere to the end, when we reach those pearly gates, then we will know for sure where we are going Purgatory and then onto Heaven or Hell. Love and peace, Carlan

 

[TriuneUnity]

Gurney may I put it this way, Catholics are justified when Baptized, The Holy Spirit removes original (Adam’s) and all sin then fills us with sanctifying grace so that we become renewed, a new man. It is a life long process,If we persevere to the end, when we reach those pearly gates, then we will know for sure where we are going Purgatory and then onto Heaven or Hell. Love and peace, Carlan

Somewhat germane to this topic so far, is an earlier post I had written on the Orthodox belief in theosis.

I have made no bones about the fact that I think there is enormous congruity between what the East calls theosis and what the Lutherans of the 16th and 17th centuries termed mystical union. The loss of that whole mystical union way of thinking has been a sad loss, in my estimation, for the Lutheran Church, and it has disfigured us. The exclusive description of justification in forensic terms has been reduced to the imparting of information: God declares you righteous for Christ’s sake. That’s indeed the truth, but it is not all of the truth.

Let me put this way: it seems to me that we Lutherans have come over the years to speak of forgiveness almost as a thing, a substance, something along the lines of Rome’s created grace, but even worse, because for Lutherans “forgiveness of sins” has come to be thought of as a mere “get out of hell free” card. Holding it, we think it excuses and indeed wipes out the consequences of lives of impenitence, ignoring the fact that our Confessions are utterly clear that saving faith exists ONLY in penitence. But the whole point of forgiveness is that it is NOT a thing, a substance, or a get out of hell free card. Forgiveness is the Blessed Trinity Himself coming to us in grace, so that His coming to us may be the advent of life and not of the judgment and death we so richly deserve. Forgiveness is given so that “life and salvation” may come with it, that is, that we may live in koinonia with God through Christ, receiving the divine life and being transfigured by that life. “But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.” (2 Cor. 3:18)

So God declares us righteous and then He goes on to make us righteous. Obviously salvation cannot depend upon His making us righteous, since that will never be completed in this age, so long as we remain in the sinful flesh. But both go inevitably together. As Luther explicated it time and again: “grace” and “the gift in grace.” He took grace for the pardoning verdict of God upon a human life, but with that verdict came the Holy Spirit himself, the Gift in grace, who renews us precisely by uniting us to the Son and through the Son to the Father. “That which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us, and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.” (1 John 1:3)

And the Lutheran Confessions explicitly speak of some form of cooperation between the new self and the Holy Spirit, no matter how weak it may be. The Large Catechism clearly speaks in “process” language when it says “In baptism we are given the grace, Spirit, and strength to suppress the old creature so that the new may come forth and grow strong” (V:76) and “Now, when we enter Christ’s kingdom, this corruption must daily decrease so that the longer we live the more gentle, patient, and meek we become, and the more we break away from greed, hatred, envy and pride.” (V:67) The Formula expresses the same reality in these words: “It has been sufficiently explained above how God makes willing people out of rebellious and unwilling people through the drawing power of the Holy Spirit, and how after this conversion of the human being the reborn will is not idle in the daily practice of repentance but cooperates in all works of the Holy Spirit that He accomplishes through us.” SD FC II:88

When the Orthodox speak of “salvation” meaning by that BOTH the merciful forgiveness of God AND the interior renewal of the person (in which the person cooperates with the Holy Spirit), I fail to see how this in and of itself contradicts what our Confessions expressly describe. Salvation is pure gift, indeed. But it is LIVING gift, and it enlivens, and so embraces the new man in his cooperation with the Holy Spirit, and a mark of the new man’s cooperation with the Spirit is that he rightly attributes the entirety of his salvation to the mercy and the grace of God, and not to himself.

St. Mark the Ascetic once expressed it like this: “Christ is Master by virtue of His own essence and Master by virtue of His incarnate life. For He creates man from nothing, and through His own Blood redeems him when dead in sin; and to those who believe in Him He has given His grace. When Scripture says, ‘He will reward every man according to his works’ (Matt 16:27), do not imagine that works in themselves merit either hell or the kingdom. On the contrary, Christ rewards each man according to whether his works are done with faith or without faith in Himself; and He is not a dealer bound by contract, but God our Creator and Redeemer.” This is from his treatise in the Philokalia titled “On Those Who Think They Are Made Righteous by Works.”

 

[Carlan]

Originally Posted by gurneyhalleck1
Hey tsering,
. As a person becomes sanctified and holy, he/she will die and have some satisifaction left for sins committed. Through purgatory satisfaction is met and the soul is finally cleansed and FINAL justification from Christ occurs, salvation. Does that make sense?

I would say that purification is also a part of that process, and if temporal punishment due to the effects of forgiven sin, is not completed in this life then it is taken care of in the state called Purgatory,Peace, Carlan

 

[Carlan]

Somewhat germane to this topic so far, is an earlier post I had written on the Orthodox belief in theosis.

I have made no bones about the fact that I think there is enormous congruity between what the East calls theosis and what the Lutherans of the 16th and 17th centuries termed mystical union. The loss of that whole mystical union way of thinking has been a sad loss, in my estimation, for the Lutheran Church, and it has disfigured us. The exclusive description of justification in forensic terms has been reduced to the imparting of information: God declares you righteous for Christ’s sake. That’s indeed the truth, but it is not all of the truth.

Let me put this way: it seems to me that we Lutherans have come over the years to speak of forgiveness almost as a thing, a substance, something along the lines of Rome’s created grace, but even worse, because for Lutherans “forgiveness of sins” has come to be thought of as a mere “get out of hell free” card. Holding it, we think it excuses and indeed wipes out the consequences of lives of impenitence, ignoring the fact that our Confessions are utterly clear that saving faith exists ONLY in penitence. But the whole point of forgiveness is that it is NOT a thing, a substance, or a get out of hell free card. Forgiveness is the Blessed Trinity Himself coming to us in grace, so that His coming to us may be the advent of life and not of the judgment and death we so richly deserve. Forgiveness is given so that “life and salvation” may come with it, that is, that we may live in koinonia with God through Christ, receiving the divine life and being transfigured by that life. “But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.” (2 Cor. 3:18)

So God declares us righteous and then He goes on to make us righteous. Obviously salvation cannot depend upon His making us righteous, since that will never be completed in this age, so long as we remain in the sinful flesh. But both go inevitably together. As Luther explicated it time and again: “grace” and “the gift in grace.” He took grace for the pardoning verdict of God upon a human life, but with that verdict came the Holy Spirit himself, the Gift in grace, who renews us precisely by uniting us to the Son and through the Son to the Father. “That which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us, and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.” (1 John 1:3)

And the Lutheran Confessions explicitly speak of some form of cooperation between the new self and the Holy Spirit, no matter how weak it may be. The Large Catechism clearly speaks in “process” language when it says “In baptism we are given the grace, Spirit, and strength to suppress the old creature so that the new may come forth and grow strong” (V:76) and “Now, when we enter Christ’s kingdom, this corruption must daily decrease so that the longer we live the more gentle, patient, and meek we become, and the more we break away from greed, hatred, envy and pride.” (V:67) The Formula expresses the same reality in these words: “It has been sufficiently explained above how God makes willing people out of rebellious and unwilling people through the drawing power of the Holy Spirit, and how after this conversion of the human being the reborn will is not idle in the daily practice of repentance but cooperates in all works of the Holy Spirit that He accomplishes through us.” SD FC II:88

When the Orthodox speak of “salvation” meaning by that BOTH the merciful forgiveness of God AND the interior renewal of the person (in which the person cooperates with the Holy Spirit), I fail to see how this in and of itself contradicts what our Confessions expressly describe. Salvation is pure gift, indeed. But it is LIVING gift, and it enlivens, and so embraces the new man in his cooperation with the Holy Spirit, and a mark of the new man’s cooperation with the Spirit is that he rightly attributes the entirety of his salvation to the mercy and the grace of God, and not to himself.

St. Mark the Ascetic once expressed it like this: “Christ is Master by virtue of His own essence and Master by virtue of His incarnate life. For He creates man from nothing, and through His own Blood redeems him when dead in sin; and to those who believe in Him He has given His grace. When Scripture says, ‘He will reward every man according to his works’ (Matt 16:27), do not imagine that works in themselves merit either hell or the kingdom. On the contrary, Christ rewards each man according to whether his works are done with faith or without faith in Himself; and He is not a dealer bound by contract, but God our Creator and Redeemer.” This is from his treatise in the Philokalia titled “On Those Who Think They Are Made Righteous by Works.”

TriuneUnity, thank you very much for this post. God bless, Carlan

 

[tsering]

Hey tsering,
You are misunderstanding it somewhat. For a Protestant, justification is an event when one is baptized and enters into the faith relationship with Christ. Catholics seperate justification into “initial” and “final” justification. The quote you have below, the first baptism and entrance into a relationship with the Lord that a Protestant would call justification, the Catholic calls “initial” justification. A spark is lit and sanctification follows through the sacraments, prayer, faith, and good works. As a person becomes sanctified and holy, he/she will die and have some satisifaction left for sins committed. Through purgatory satisfaction is met and the soul is finally cleansed and FINAL justification from Christ occurs, salvation. Does that make sense?

Gurney - Thanks for clarification! I also found an explanation (again correct me if I’m wrong), that Catholic justification is not only a “covering over” of previously committed sins before baptism through the merits of Christ, but it is also an impartation of justness to the individual so they become just (righteous), not just “positionally” in the Protestant sense of the word, but also literally in character and action so they become pleasing to God. They are cleansed. I guess a question would be does Christ’s sacrifice confer forgiveness to those who commit sins after baptism? Do the sacraments confer the merits of Christ’s sacrifice to the believer and this is the process of sanctification which leads to final justification?

About the consequences of sin after believing in Christ. I have heard many in Baptist, Charismatic, non-denominational, and fundamental circles claiming clearly that though faith in Christ’s perfect sacrifice covers our sins and gives us “positional” justification for assurance of salvation and heaven, we must still face the temporal punishments of our sins. This is a sticky issue. When I talk with them about God allowing temporal punishment in my life for certain sins, some would correct me by saying that God is a God of love and that I’m already forgiven through Christ, He overlooks my sins and doesn’t punish me for them anymore. (This doesn’t seem to line up with Hebrews). My question is then…where does temporal punishment come in then? When I use the word discipline instead of punishment, then the lights turn on in peoples brains and they can accept that. When you use the term consequences in relation to sin (instead of punishment) people tend to accept that also, because it removes the responsibility away from God (He has already forgiven us eternally and that means we go to heaven no matter what). I don’t like that either, because I believe God, as Father, wants to get involved in every aspect of our lives. As Judge he doesn’t just let people slip into Hell by some detached consequence of sin, He pronounced the consequence - death and He actually sends the unrighteous there at the end of the age. Also, I think talking about God’s discipline as punishment reminds many of them of the Catholic teaching they are trying so hard to avoid…mainly that we can loose salvation after believing through mortal sins. Am I wrong or just limited?

 

[tsering]

The other issue is purgatory. If God disciplines and cleanses His children, that means He sees the sins we commit as Christians. Though this is obvious to me from reading the Scriptures, I don’t understand why I end up arguing with some Christians about it. They insist that He sees us through Christ, meaning He ignores our sin. I can’t stand this teaching, and yet it is so prevalent that many are blind to what Scripture clearly teaches.

Actually, I’m not a Catholic yet, but purgatory was something I considered believing in before I even considered becoming a Catholic. There is a new teaching in the Evangelical Churches, mainly Dispensational, that God does look upon our “investment” in this lifetime. Basically what have we done with the grace He’s given us. They believe that there are rewards in heaven and some will receive more than others based upon how they performed in this life. They can’t avoid this teaching because its clear in Jesus’ parables. Because they are holding onto the idea that God has “covered over” our sins, and that as TriuneUnity has pointed out, given us a “ticket” out of Hell, they say that God only judges us according to our good works done in His grace and rewards us accordingly…but He doesn’t judge our sins. When you ask the question, well what if someone sins their whole life, they answer that if the person had faith they go to heaven because that’s guaranteed (once saved, always saved), God does not see their sin anymore, but sin disabled their ability to do good works, so they won’t receive any rewards. They use the passage:

“For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. But if any man buildeth on the foundation gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, stubble; each man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it is revealed in fire; and the fire itself shall prove each man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work shall abide which he built thereon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as through fire.” - 1 Corinthians 3:10-15

First, they deny this talks of any purging (purgatory). Second, they point out that because those who built with perishable materials still made it…we should have assurance of salvation (heaven). Just from reading this verse, their argument doesn’t make sense to me. First, if my works were burnt up and I suffered that loss, I would be feeling some punishment, in other words I think God would be burning up my sinful pride…and I think He would know that, especially in light of the next passages:

“Know ye not that ye are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man destroyeth the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, and such are ye.” - 1 Corinthians 3:16-17

They claim that a person can choose not to invest God’s grace after receiving salvation through faith and still enter heaven. What about Matthew 25. Sounds like God cares about what we DO with faith and grace to me.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Great post, tsering. The Catholic Church doesn’t use the term “cover” for justification or forgiveness of sins. Sins, in Catholic eyes, are taken away, removed, and sanctifying grace is injected in its place, infusion. For the Protestant the sinner will always be a sinner by nature by virtue of his original sin and corruption. Roland Bainton, a Lutheran scholar who wrote “Here I Stand” about Martin Luther, discussed how Luther’s view was, if a person goes to confession he receives forgivenss for the explicit sins confessed, but it’s not just THOSE sins that alienate him from God, it’s the entire human condition that is alienating. It’s the very way the man is wired, wired for sin and yet having the capacity for spiritual sanctification and maturation. Confession doesn’t remove that proclivity to sin. Human beings cannot live up to the expectations of the Law. The Law, as Paul puts it, is a death sentence to the soul because it is perfection from God and no one can live up to it. The result is death. Christ lived the Law perfectly in His incarnate life then died in our place. He did what we cannot do. So from the Protestant angle, believing that we can somehow live up to it or try and do good works without completely proclaiming our justification through faith, we are lost. What works can we possibly do to impress God enough to live up to the Law and make ourselves righteous when even the smallest sin is deadly? That’s what a Protestant might say.

A Catholic focuses on sanctification more as the ignition for the fire of justification whereas the Protestants see it in reverse. Protestants tend to say that ‘sin is sin’ and Catholics divide sins into two categories: mortal and venial, mortal being deadly sins that need to be confessed to bring back the sanctifying grace lost from said sin. So Protestants focus on Paul’s vocabulary word “credited” righteousness and Catholics tend to look at James and the works vantage point.

Gurney - Thanks for clarification! I also found an explanation (again correct me if I’m wrong), that Catholic justification is not only a “covering over” of previously committed sins before baptism through the merits of Christ, but it is also an impartation of justness to the individual so they become just (righteous), not just “positionally” in the Protestant sense of the word, but also literally in character and action so they become pleasing to God. They are cleansed. I guess a question would be does Christ’s sacrifice confer forgiveness to those who commit sins after baptism? Do the sacraments confer the merits of Christ’s sacrifice to the believer and this is the process of sanctification which leads to final justification?

About the consequences of sin after believing in Christ. I have heard many in Baptist, Charismatic, non-denominational, and fundamental circles claiming clearly that though faith in Christ’s perfect sacrifice covers our sins and gives us “positional” justification for assurance of salvation and heaven, we must still face the temporal punishments of our sins. This is a sticky issue. When I talk with them about God allowing temporal punishment in my life for certain sins, some would correct me by saying that God is a God of love and that I’m already forgiven through Christ, He overlooks my sins and doesn’t punish me for them anymore. (This doesn’t seem to line up with Hebrews). My question is then…where does temporal punishment come in then? When I use the word discipline instead of punishment, then the lights turn on in peoples brains and they can accept that. When you use the term consequences in relation to sin (instead of punishment) people tend to accept that also, because it removes the responsibility away from God (He has already forgiven us eternally and that means we go to heaven no matter what). I don’t like that either, because I believe God, as Father, wants to get involved in every aspect of our lives. As Judge he doesn’t just let people slip into Hell by some detached consequence of sin, He pronounced the consequence - death and He actually sends the unrighteous there at the end of the age. Also, I think talking about God’s discipline as punishment reminds many of them of the Catholic teaching they are trying so hard to avoid…mainly that we can loose salvation after believing through mortal sins. Am I wrong or just limited?

 

[tsering]

Thank you Gurney. Okay I have a simple question for all:

If God sees us through Christ’s sacrifice - does that mean he forgets or ignores our sin? Is this Biblical?

Does He see us through Christ’s sacrifice and because of that disciplines us for our sins? Is this Biblical?

 

[tsering]

Great post, tsering. The Catholic Church doesn’t use the term “cover” for justification or forgiveness of sins. Sins, in Catholic eyes, are taken away, removed, and sanctifying grace is injected in its place, infusion. For the Protestant the sinner will always be a sinner by nature by virtue of his original sin and corruption. Roland Bainton, a Lutheran scholar who wrote “Here I Stand” about Martin Luther, discussed how Luther’s view was, if a person goes to confession he receives forgivenss for the explicit sins confessed, but it’s not just THOSE sins that alienate him from God, it’s the entire human condition that is alienating. It’s the very way the man is wired, wired for sin and yet having the capacity for spiritual sanctification and maturation. Confession doesn’t remove that proclivity to sin. Human beings cannot live up to the expectations of the Law. The Law, as Paul puts it, is a death sentence to the soul because it is perfection from God and no one can live up to it. The result is death. Christ lived the Law perfectly in His incarnate life then died in our place. He did what we cannot do. So from the Protestant angle, believing that we can somehow live up to it or try and do good works without completely proclaiming our justification through faith, we are lost. What works can we possibly do to impress God enough to live up to the Law and make ourselves righteous when even the smallest sin is deadly? That’s what a Protestant might say.

A Catholic focuses on sanctification more as the ignition for the fire of justification whereas the Protestants see it in reverse. Protestants tend to say that ‘sin is sin’ and Catholics divide sins into two categories: mortal and venial, mortal being deadly sins that need to be confessed to bring back the sanctifying grace lost from said sin. So Protestants focus on Paul’s vocabulary word “credited” righteousness and Catholics tend to look at James and the works vantage point.

Gurney, I don’t need to look at James to know that God cares about what I do. The Gospels are pretty clear. James seems to be exposition of the Sermon on the Mount anyways.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I hope you don’t think I’m lecturing you here or admonishing you? This reply sounds like you feel that way? I’m not taking sides whatsoever, just explaining my understanding of the two approaches. You decide what you believe. No critiques or admonishments here?

Gurney, I don’t need to look at James to know that God cares about what I do. The Gospels are pretty clear. James seems to be exposition of the Sermon on the Mount anyways.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Before exploring that, if you don’t mind me asking, are you considering Catholicism or are you comfortable as a Protestant? God bless…

Thank you Gurney. Okay I have a simple question for all:

If God sees us through Christ’s sacrifice - does that mean he forgets or ignores our sin? Is this Biblical?

Does He see us through Christ’s sacrifice and because of that disciplines us for our sins? Is this Biblical?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Thank you Gurney. Okay I have a simple question for all:

If God sees us through Christ’s sacrifice - does that mean he forgets or ignores our sin? Is this Biblical?

No, God doesn’t ignore our sin. God is just and so sin must be punished. There is no way that God can “wink at it” if you will. Our sin was punished with His wrath; but Christ bore it. This is why Paul refers to God as Him who is just (sin is punished) and the justifier (Christ bore the punishment in our place) of him who has faith in Jesus.

 

[Carlan]

The other issue is purgatory. If God disciplines and cleanses His children, that means He sees the sins we commit as Christians. Though this is obvious to me from reading the Scriptures, I don’t understand why I end up arguing with some Christians about it. They insist that He sees us through Christ, meaning He ignores our sin. I can’t stand this teaching, and yet it is so prevalent that many are blind to what Scripture clearly teaches.

Actually, I’m not a Catholic yet, but purgatory was something I considered believing in before I even considered becoming a Catholic. There is a new teaching in the Evangelical Churches, mainly Dispensational, that God does look upon our “investment” in this lifetime. Basically what have we done with the grace He’s given us. They believe that there are rewards in heaven and some will receive more than others based upon how they performed in this life. They can’t avoid this teaching because its clear in Jesus’ parables. Because they are holding onto the idea that God has “covered over” our sins, and that as TriuneUnity has pointed out, given us a “ticket” out of Hell, they say that God only judges us according to our good works done in His grace and rewards us accordingly…but He doesn’t judge our sins. When you ask the question, well what if someone sins their whole life, they answer that if the person had faith they go to heaven because that’s guaranteed (once saved, always saved), God does not see their sin anymore, but sin disabled their ability to do good works, so they won’t receive any rewards. They use the passage:

“For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. But if any man buildeth on the foundation gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, stubble; each man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it is revealed in fire; and the fire itself shall prove each man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work shall abide which he built thereon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as through fire.” - 1 Corinthians 3:10-15

First, they deny this talks of any purging (purgatory). Second, they point out that because those who built with perishable materials still made it…we should have assurance of salvation (heaven). Just from reading this verse, their argument doesn’t make sense to me. First, if my works were burnt up and I suffered that loss, I would be feeling some punishment, in other words I think God would be burning up my sinful pride…and I think He would know that, especially in light of the next passages:

“Know ye not that ye are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man destroyeth the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, and such are ye.” - 1 Corinthians 3:16-17

They claim that a person can choose not to invest God’s grace after receiving salvation through faith and still enter heaven. What about Matthew 25. Sounds like God cares about what we DO with faith and grace to me.

Dear Tsering, thank you for this you get it, and you will make a great Catholic )) I like it, and I must say I often think of us up there in heaven hopping from Glory to Glory. Yep , you gotta starting listening to the Sermon on the Mount. God bless and Peace to all. Carlan

 

[Carlan]

Great post, tsering. The Catholic Church doesn’t use the term “cover” for justification or forgiveness of sins. Sins, in Catholic eyes, are taken away, removed, and sanctifying grace is injected in its place, infusion. For the Protestant the sinner will always be a sinner by nature by virtue of his original sin and corruption. Roland Bainton, a Lutheran scholar who wrote “Here I Stand” about Martin Luther, discussed how Luther’s view was, if a person goes to confession he receives forgivenss for the explicit sins confessed, but it’s not just THOSE sins that alienate him from God, it’s the entire human condition that is alienating. It’s the very way the man is wired, wired for sin and yet having the capacity for spiritual sanctification and maturation. Confession doesn’t remove that proclivity to sin. Human beings cannot live up to the expectations of the Law. The Law, as Paul puts it, is a death sentence to the soul because it is perfection from God and no one can live up to it. The result is death. Christ lived the Law perfectly in His incarnate life then died in our place. He did what we cannot do. So from the Protestant angle, believing that we can somehow live up to it or try and do good works without completely proclaiming our justification through faith, we are lost. What works can we possibly do to impress God enough to live up to the Law and make ourselves righteous when even the smallest sin is deadly? That’s what a Protestant might say.

A Catholic focuses on sanctification more as the ignition for the fire of justification whereas the Protestants see it in reverse. Protestants tend to say that ‘sin is sin’ and Catholics divide sins into two categories: mortal and venial, mortal being deadly sins that need to be confessed to bring back the sanctifying grace lost from said sin. So Protestants focus on Paul’s vocabulary word “credited” righteousness and Catholics tend to look at James and the works vantage point.

I do like this respose, Gurney, very good. Yes, it is all through God’s gift of Sanctifying grace. Goodness! Catholics what would we do without the sanctifying grace of the Sacraments? In my opinion I think it would be very hard.Peace, Carlan

P.S. The Body , Blood , Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is the at the very centre of our Catholic worship and life, Amen

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…So Protestants focus on Paul’s vocabulary word “credited” righteousness and Catholics tend to look at James and the works vantage point.

I disagree with this analogy. This presumes that Protestants & Catholics focus their theologies on opposite spectrums. I don’t think this is the case.

I think perhaps a more accurate way to express it is that Protestants read James in the context of Paul whereas Catholics read Paul & James in the context of the Sermon on the Mount through the eyes of Apostolic Tradition.

 

[tsering]

I hope you don’t think I’m lecturing you here or admonishing you? This reply sounds like you feel that way? I’m not taking sides whatsoever, just explaining my understanding of the two approaches. You decide what you believe. No critiques or admonishments here?

Gurney, no way bro. I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. I think I worded it wrong. I should of said that I agree James addresses our works (whether sinful or righteous) and that there are also so many other Scriptures that talk about the importance of our works. Most people I’ve talked to in Protestant circles though claim that it all boils down to James, but I disagree, because there are so many others that emphasize what we do with grace and faith.

Hebrews 10 (many use this to prove assurance of salvation, but yet forget to read the whole chapter which warns against willful sin after coming to Christ’s sacrifice)

Hebrews 12 (talks of God’s discipline as our Father, and also warns us against falling short of God’s grace, that no man will see God without sanctification, we are warned not to sell our birthright or turn away from God)

The Gospels talk of many more instances of people coming to an intellectual faith in Christ but then falling away or not being accepted into heaven. I think Christ demands our action and tells us after being saved by faith to go and sin no more.

Personally, I think Paul in Romans was clearly talking about the works of the Law (i.e. the OT temple system with it’s sacrifices) are ineffective for justification, but that faith in Christ brings it about (because he is our Pasch - the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world). James uses the same illustration of Abraham, but states that he was justified by works, obviously these are not the works of the Law, but of obedience to God in faith (he went into Sarah and she conceived the child of promise - imagine a man and woman as old as they were - that was great faith coupled with appropriate action). It seems James is asking what are we doing with faith and grace in Christ because all the actual works he addresses in his epistle seem to point to the Sermon on the Mount (maybe the law of liberty - James 2:12)…not the OT sacrificial legal system. We’re in the New Covenant not the Old, but the New Covenant also demands action because God has written his law on our hearts.