Justification - Catholics and Protestants

[fhansen]

If the Protestant and Catholic definitions of sanctification are essentially the same-that a believer, cooperating with Gods grace, grows in knowledge and love of God as well as love for neighbor, with acts of various kinds naturally and necessarily resulting from this disposition, then Protestants should know that Catholics are at least are not depending on works of the law to play a role in their salvation, but rather works born of love. And if so, then the bone of contention should be solely whether or not sanctification plays a role in salvation, rather than anything to do with whether or not Catholics are trying to earn their way to heaven by attempting to fulfill the law* on their own efforts*.

But, if sanctification does play a role in being justified for salvation, then this is a very significant difference. Either man must be truly just in order to be qualified for entrance into heaven or he need be only imputedly so.

 

[2nd_Adam]

I have read it before, more than once I might add. You are still trying to imply (it would seem) that the Pope somehow teaches a different view than the Catholic Church, and I am telling you that you are mistaken.

Why can’t Catholics simply be happy that many Evangelicals rejoice in what the Pope taught on the doctrine of justification by faith? Do you prefer that we didn’t like his teaching?

 

[2nd_Adam]

If the Protestant and Catholic definitions of sanctification are essentially the same-that a believer, cooperating with Gods grace, grows in knowledge and love of God as well as love for neighbor, with acts of various kinds naturally and necessarily resulting from this disposition, then Protestants should know that Catholics are at least are not depending on works of the law to play a role in their salvation, but rather works born of love. And if so, then the bone of contention should be solely whether or not sanctification plays a role in salvation, rather than anything to do with whether or not Catholics are trying to earn their way to heaven by attempting to fulfill the law* on their own efforts*.

But, if sanctification does play a role in being justified for salvation, then this is a very significant difference. Either man must be truly just in order to be qualified for entrance into heaven or he need be only imputedly so.

That’s a very good assessment of the issue at hand. Sanctification does not play a role in our justification before God, because we are declared just upon conversion, based on the righteousness of Christ alone. How can you add to perfection found in Christ? I think we have to understand that historic Protestants do not believe all who profess Christ actually possess Christ’s righteousness through imputation. A growing affection and love for God are assurance that a sinner has been truly been justified. Since a Catholics justification is not based on the alien righteousness of Christ alone, it appears to many Protestants that Catholic believe in a works righteousness gospel, based on your obedience or cooperation with God, to be made just. That’s a tough way to go, since the Christian life is quite the struggle. Christ is sufficient for us because His perfect life and sacrificial death merited our justification on our behalf; therefore, we are able to enter the sabbath rest found in Christ alone.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Why can’t Catholics simply be happy that many Evangelicals rejoice in what the Pope taught on the doctrine of justification by faith? Do you prefer that we didn’t like his teaching?

Do you seriously think anyone here will buy this what you are trying to sell here? You have been trying to imply that the Pope is teaching something different than what the Catholic Church teaches, in this thread and others, and myself and others have been calling you out on this over and over. If you were simply trying to state that you rejoice in the fact that there is some common ground between Catholics and Lutherans on the doctrine of justification then you could have said so in a very clear and concise manner, but you did not.

You are employing deceptive tactics that are un-befitting a Christian. You should really try from here on out to say what you mean, and mean what you say, and to do so in an un-ambiguous way. The obfuscation needs to stop.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Do you seriously think anyone here will buy this what you are trying to sell here? You have been trying to imply that the Pope is teaching something different than what the Catholic Church teaches, in this thread and others, and myself and others have been calling you out on this over and over. If you were simply trying to state that you rejoice in the fact that there is some common ground between Catholics and Lutherans on the doctrine of justification then you could have said so in a very clear and concise manner, but you did not.

You are employing deceptive tactics that are un-befitting a Christian. You should really try from here on out to say what you mean, and mean what you say, and to do so in an un-ambiguous way. The obfuscation needs to stop.

Why do you guys make this so personal? Here’s an article from Christianity Today basically rejoicing on Pope Benedict’s teaching on justification. I know it is a Protestant perspective, but my belief is the same as many other Evangelicals.

christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/januaryweb-only/103-51.0.html

 

[E.E.N.S]

If the Protestant and Catholic definitions of sanctification are essentially the same-that a believer, cooperating with Gods grace, grows in knowledge and love of God as well as love for neighbor, with acts of various kinds naturally and necessarily resulting from this disposition, then Protestants should know that Catholics are at least are not depending on works of the law to play a role in their salvation, but rather works born of love. And if so, then the bone of contention should be solely whether or not sanctification plays a role in salvation, rather than anything to do with whether or not Catholics are trying to earn their way to heaven by attempting to fulfill the law* on their own efforts*.

But, if sanctification does play a role in being justified for salvation, then this is a very significant difference. Either man must be truly just in order to be qualified for entrance into heaven or he need be only imputedly so.

And we can assuredly say that justification and sanctification are one. The Council of Trent helped to clarify and reinforce the Church’s doctrine of justification, by focusing on sanctification as part of justification. The Council’s decrees laid to rest the heretical doctrines of the Protestant Reformers by insisting that justification of the believer is not a forensic declaration of a person’s righteousness, but an actual interior purification of the soul. Justification truly makes the soul just through grace. Thus the sanctification of the soul is a necessary part of justification. Sin is not covered or concealed, but is literally cleansed away by purification of sanctifying grace. Justification consists of one act of God that includes forgiveness of sin and sanctification of the soul. Thus a justified person is truly made pleasing to God.

For those who like to read lengthly articles ahem, there have been some links posted earlier in the thread, but here is another one for those with plenty of free time: (It’s actually quite short by comparison.)

saintaquinas.com/Justification_by_Grace.html

 

[2nd_Adam]

And we can assuredly say that justification and sanctification are one. The Council of Trent helped to clarify and reinforce the Church’s doctrine of justification, by focusing on sanctification as part of justification. The Council’s decrees laid to rest the heretical doctrines of the Protestant Reformers by insisting that justification of the believer is not a forensic declaration of a person’s righteousness, but an actual interior purification of the soul. Justification truly makes the soul just through grace. Thus the sanctification of the soul is a necessary part of justification. Sin is not covered or concealed, but is literally cleansed away by purification of sanctifying grace. Justification consists of one act of God that includes forgiveness of sin and sanctification of the soul. Thus a justified person is truly made pleasing to God.

For those who like to read lengthly articles ahem, there have been some links posted earlier in the thread, but here is another one for those with plenty of free time: (It’s actually quite short by comparison.)

saintaquinas.com/Justification_by_Grace.html

I understand that this is the Catholic position on justification. But does that mean that Protestants and Catholics cannot unite since our understanding of justification are different? I bet you reject the work of ECT 1 and ECT II, correct? What do you think aboout the Catholic signers like Richard John Neuhaus and PETER KREEFT?

 

[E.E.N.S]

Why do you guys make this so personal? Here’s an article from Christianity Today basically rejoicing on Pope Benedict’s teaching on justification. I know it is a Protestant perspective, but my belief is the same as many other Evangelicals.

christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/januaryweb-only/103-51.0.html

Who’s taking it personal? You have been the one accusing people of attacking you, or am I mistaken? I am merely calling you out on your deceptive tactics. Seriously, I find it hard to believe that you are doing the things you have been doing on accident.

 

[E.E.N.S]

I understand that this is the Catholic position on justification. But does that mean that Protestants and Catholics cannot unite since our understanding of justification are different? I bet you reject the work of ECT 1 and ECT II, correct? What do you think aboout the Catholic signers like Richard John Neuhaus and PETER KREEFT?

Honestly, I haven’t done much reading on the matter, but I will do so for your edification.

 

[fhansen]

How can you add to perfection found in Christ?

But it has nothing to do with attaining to the perfection of Christ per se-it has to do with attaining to the perfection of man-and whatever that means for us according to Gods perfect wisdom-of being who God created man to be-with Christ as the first fruits-and us following. God did not intend for the fall to happen but He knew it would and His recourse was always to attain His objective eventually in spite of mans waywardness. And the epitome of His will is not to receive sinners into heaven but rather to have them no longer in disobedience, i.e. for them to be willfully in union with His will.-where creation is no longer out of order.

 

[guanophore]

I thought you posted that a forensic justification was heresy? Do you want to recant?

No, but somebody did. I was going to respond, but decided to pass.

According to Scripture we are declared righteous (justification) and made righteous (sanctification).

I know it seems that way to you, but it is not what the Apostles taught.

Abraham Justified by Faith

I think you often forget that the NT was written by Catholics, for Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic.

The Apostles taught that saving faith is "completed’ by works. They are inextricably joined.

 

[guanophore]

There you go again, putting words in my mouth. Why do you do that?

there is no need to put words, as you have put plenty of your own, and I read them. Do you not believe what you wrote before? You stated you believed there is an Elect within Catholicism.

You sure like to speak for me, but you are incorrect when you do

I hope you will correct me. You also posted that “iron sharpening iron” will make one burn for the glory of God, so have at it!

. I've never posted anything remotely in what you stated above.

Perhaps I could say it better? The “remnant” within Catholicism that are among the elect will be saved, even though they continue to call themselves “Catholic”.

Is that more accurate?

Do you deny that you said people who read their Bible more will move gradually away from Catholicism, into Calvanism? You wrote that because you believe Calvanism to be the most “pure” understanding of the Biblical record. You acknowledge that it has it’s weaknesses, but overall, is the most accurate available. You reject that the Catholic Church has the fullness of Truth.

 

[guanophore]

I think it’s time to put you on ignore. How do you do that?

At the top of the page you will see a link called “profile”. In the list is “your profile”. When you get to your profile, look on the left under settings (same place you went to edit your signature). Toward the bottom of the list is a link to your ignore list. You can open it and add names. It will prevent you from having to view any of my obnoxious posts.

 

[guanophore]

Thank you so much for the prayers, and I will post my beliefs anytime I have something to sy that I feel if from God.

this is great! that is the purpose of CAF.

 Don't read it if you don't like what I say. As I have said before I really don't care what you think or don't think of me it is unimportant.

I like reading your posts, Tweety. It is clear to me that you have a very strong and fervent faith in God. What I mind is when you post anti-Catholic stuff, when your affiliation says you are Catholic. I think it is disingenuous and misleading.

Sometimes you make me crack up laughting you are so off base.

This being the case, why on earth would you want to put me on “ignore”?!

 

[2nd_Adam]

At the top of the page you will see a link called “profile”. In the list is “your profile”. When you get to your profile, look on the left under settings (same place you went to edit your signature). Toward the bottom of the list is a link to your ignore list. You can open it and add names. It will prevent you from having to view any of my obnoxious posts.

Thanks for the info, but I slept well last night and all is forgiven. Let’s just say siblings fight.

 

[guanophore]

I wasn’t questioning if you believe it to be a lie, I was just wondering exactly what out of this quote

is misrepresenting your position?

Thanks bookgirl. I could not figure this one out either. I think I did figure out what was wrong with the other one, but this one I can’t see it.

 

[guanophore]

guanophore posted that what I believe in regards to justification is heresy on another thread. If you want to discuss the thread topic, I will respond to you.

Well, since justification is, indeed, the topic of THIS thread, then please bring the offending quote here, or put a link to it. I think I do remember someone posting that the notion of “forensic justification” is heresy…

Otherwise, I will no longer respond to unrelated issues that you bring up. Ecumenicism is not easy between Catholics and Protestants; however, even Pope Bendedict is willing to try with his statement of faith alone.

I would go so far as to say that ecumenism is impossible apart from Truth. To the extent that people depart from Truth, ecumenism will not exist.

 

[guanophore]

Do you really think that I posted anything like this?

I think I can see what was wrong, and posted a reframe. Perhaps I got closer?

Or, do you think that I believe this?

You did post the agreeement of the Alliance that specifically says Catholics may be among the saved as long as they don’t embrace Catholic faith.

Heck, most Protestants and Catholics have no idea what justification means.

At least we are in agreement on that point!

guanophore not only continues to attack me by untrue statments about me,

Well, I apologize if I got it wrong, or stated it badly. I will keep trying.

he continues to attack his Catholic sister. That just amazes me how undermines Tweetymom who is Catholic.

I am not attacking my dear sister Tweety. I have criticized the disingenuous use of the affiliation of Catholic. Claiming to be Catholic does not make one so. She has clearly rejected Catholic doctrine, and does not hold to the Catholic faith.

 

[guanophore]

Things look quite different with the proper context, doesn’t it? I think you should go to the TULIP thread to get my answer to your question

No, 2nd, you are just dodging now! I don’t believe there was anything in that passage that I got wrong. I think it does summarize your views (unlike my other summary that missed the mark).

There is no need to go to the TULIP thread to get your “answer” to “what in this passage is a lie”. The post was here, the question is here. Why are you avoiding it?

If there is something there that misrpresents, please be clear about it.

 

[Cr8ton]

I would go so far as to say that ecumenism is impossible apart from Truth. To the extent that people depart from Truth, ecumenism will not exist.

I believe ecumenism SHOULD definitely exist apart from what is the truth when it comes to salvation. That specific issue [salvation] seems to me like it would “draw the line” between accepting someone as a true brother or sister in Christ or praying for them to come to the truth about accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. We know if someone preaches or teaches a salvation other than that of what Jesus Christ taught that we must correct them in their misguided belief. However, that does not mean we shouldn’t love them as the Word of God tells us we should.

Is it not right to say we should all love each other as believers in Christ who’m have the Holy Spirit dwelling within us? There is a difference between helping others to the truth of various doctrine outside of salvation, and helping others learn what the Bible says about being saved and becoming a Child of God. Does anyone disagree with this? If you are discussing a doctrine outside of that dealing with salvation then we should still be considered family in the Kingdom of God therefore possessing the bond of unity.

Am I off base here?? This seems logical to me.