question

[hoser]

Someone posted this to me, can you help me answert it?

"The major difference between your belief and the Protestant belief is the analytical view of justification vs. the synthetic view.

You, as a Catholic, believe that in order for one to be justified, on that day of judgment they must be deemed righteous.

What do you think God meant when He said “YOUR righteousness is but filthy rags.”

The Protestant believes that in order for one to be justified, a synthesis must occur. We know that God needs no microscope to look inside us and find all kinds of unrighteousness and sin. Therefore, to be justified, our sinful and unrighteous state of being, on that day of judgment, must be covered by the cloak of Jesus’ righteousness.

Not unlike the Catholic “treasury of merit” (stored “extra” righteousness from those who did more than enough to earn justification) where the Church would dip into that treasury and scoop out a serving of merit for those who need it. To the Protestant, Jesus’ meritorious actions and infinite righteousness is enough to cover us all… us being those who truly have faith in Him as our Savior and LORD. I liken this “covering” by Christ’s righteousness to the covering of Adam and Eve’s nakedness.

Now I think you would agree, that faith cannot come without grace. Is that correct? If so, as a Catholic and one who believes you can be graced and achieve salvation but can also lose it, then you must therefore also believe that God’s grace can return to Him void and rejected?"

 

[billgolle]

i am not sure what u mean by ur question…are u asking if God’s grace can be given to someone and be rejected?? or are u asking the difference between the Catholic view and the Protestant veiw on justification? In regards to grace Saint Thomas Aquinas taught passive reprobation…whee God passes over an individual do to his inherent sin…aslo man always has free will and can reject God’s grace…as regars to justification please elabortate on ur question as to what it is exactly u mean

 

[jeffreedy789]

part of your questioner’s misunderstanding lies in our role in our salvation. he should understand that we catholics teach that we cannot do anything to earn our salvation. that God saves us. and that He does so through the good things He does in our lives, and through our lives.

he thinks that we teach that eventually we will do enough good works to merit our salvation, and this flies in the face of Christ’s work on the cross. the salvation provided by Christ’s sacrifice is what saves us, and it does so, partially, through the good works that play out in our lives as we follow Him.

does that make sense to your questioner?

 

[JimG]

He asks if God’s grace can be rejected.

Apparently it can. Otherwise, everyone would be saved. For God desires that all be saved, and his grace is sufficient for all. The only thing to prevent it is man’s rejection of God’s grace, freely offered.

JimG

 

[stumbler]

"The major difference between your belief and the Protestant belief is the analytical view of justification vs. the synthetic view.

I haven’t heard it described this way before. The Protestant view is generally (?) described as forensic justification. God engages in legalisms.

You, as a Catholic, believe that in order for one to be justified, on that day of judgment they must be deemed righteous.

They? Justified? No. This is all muddled.

What do you think God meant when He said “YOUR righteousness is but filthy rags.”

"You come to the help of those who gladly do right, who remember your ways.
But when we continued to sin against them, you were angry.
How then can we be saved?
All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away. "(Is 64:5-6)

Sounds like “righteous acts” on their own are worthless. Only when done through God’s graces are they worthy. Catholics agree with that.

The Protestant believes that in order for one to be justified, a synthesis must occur. We know that God needs no microscope to look inside us and find all kinds of unrighteousness and sin. Therefore, to be justified, our sinful and unrighteous state of being, on that day of judgment, must be covered by the cloak of Jesus’ righteousness.

OK, it’s his statement of the Protestant position.

Now I think you would agree, that faith cannot come without grace. Is that correct? If so, as a Catholic and one who believes you can be graced and achieve salvation but can also lose it, then you must therefore also believe that God’s grace can return to Him void and rejected?"

This whole section is not clearly written. His clause: “faith cannot come without grace” from a Catholic might read: “faith comes to us as a grace from God.” His clause: “you can be graced and achieve salvation” from a Catholic might read: “salvation is a free gift from God.” His clause: “you must therefore also believe that God’s grace can return to Him void and rejected” from a Catholic might read: “God’s grace can be rejected.” His distinctions between “faith” and “grace,” and the use of the words “achieve” and “void” (among others) just muddle things.

Also, is your correspondent talking about righteousness or justification? There are a couple different Protestant formulations of the “Justified by Faith Alone” theory. Stick to Scripture. Make him prove his novel doctrine.

 

[mtr01]

stumbler:

Also, is your correspondent talking about righteousness or justification? There are a couple different Protestant formulations of the “Justified by Faith Alone” theory. Stick to Scripture. Make him prove his novel doctrine.

Speaking of Scripture, here’s a link I found on another thread. It’s kind of a parody on the ‘dynamic equivalence’ changes in the NIV. To make it’s point, it uses the idea of Sola Fide, and shows how a group of ficticious bible translators would have to change the verses that correspond to the Catholic position in order to support Sola Fide.

If nothing else, the myriad of Scripture in support of the Catholic view the authors of the page list is worth reading.

catholicoutlook.com/rfv.php

 

[Theodora]

billgolle:

i am not sure what u mean by ur question…are u asking if God’s grace can be given to someone and be rejected?? or are u asking the difference between the Catholic view and the Protestant veiw on justification? In regards to grace Saint Thomas Aquinas taught passive reprobation…whee God passes over an individual do to his inherent sin…aslo man always has free will and can reject God’s grace…as regars to justification please elabortate on ur question as to what it is exactly u mean

It wroks. Ltrers dnot ahve to be in teh rghit seuqenec in a wrod to be bale to wokn twah it maens!

Judging from your pseudonym and the way you’re scrambling up words, you probably know exactly what I just wrote.

Theodora

 

[Faith_is_First]

Therefore, to be justified, our sinful and unrighteous state of being, on that day of judgment, must be covered by the cloak of Jesus’ righteousness.

We believe that we need a cleansing, not a covering. A cloak only hides the filth underneath.

Not unlike the Catholic “treasury of merit” (stored “extra” righteousness from those who did more than enough to earn justification) where the Church would dip into that treasury and scoop out a serving of merit for those who need it. To the Protestant, Jesus’ meritorious actions and infinite righteousness is enough to cover us all… us being those who truly have faith in Him as our Savior and LORD. I liken this “covering” by Christ’s righteousness to the covering of Adam and Eve’s nakedness.

Jesus’ sacrifice is included in this ‘treasury of merit’. And since the power of his merit is infinite, the treasury of the merit is infinite.

The merits of the saints are finite. Does this mean that a man cannot add to the ‘treasury’? Of course not! You can add to it if you so desire. But keep in mind that the merits in the treasury are infinite, and you are only adding a finite amount when you do good works.

Now I think you would agree, that faith cannot come without grace. Is that correct? If so, as a Catholic and one who believes you can be graced and achieve salvation but can also lose it, then you must therefore also believe that God’s grace can return to Him void and rejected?"

Our wills make a difference, yes. We catholics reject the authoritarian God that Calvinism teaches. We do not believe in irresistible grace. Even many calvinists shy away from the term. Grace can be rejected, depending on our wills. But keep in mind that rejecting God’s grace is a sin, and has eternal consequences.

 

[SteveT]

“You, as a Catholic, believe that in order for one to be justified, on that day of judgment they must be deemed righteous.”

Wrong. Not just deemed but actually be righteous.

“Strive … for the** holiness without** which no one will see the Lord.” Heb 12:14

see also the “golden chain” in Rom 6:16-22: Obedience leads to righteousness, righteousness to sanctification, and sanctification to eternal life.

"What do you think God meant when He said “YOUR righteousness is but filthy rags.”

Deeds done in the flesh are filthy rags in God’s sight. He certainly doesn’t mean deeds done by the power of the Spirit are filthy rags. Paul says deeds done in the Spirit are salvific:
“12] So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh – 13] for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live.” Rom 8

“The Protestant believes that … to be justified, our sinful and unrighteous state of being, on that day of judgment, must be covered by the cloak of Jesus’ righteousness.”

The Protestant then believes in error, because nothing unclean, even hidden under Jesus’ cloak, will be allowed into heaven. Your unrighteousness must not merely be covered, it must be removed.

“But nothing** unclean shall** enter it …” Rev 21:27

“Now I think you would agree, that faith cannot come without grace.”

True, faith is a gift.

“If so, as a Catholic and one who believes you can be graced and achieve salvation but can also lose it, then you must therefore also believe that God’s grace can return to Him void and rejected?”​

You mean, that it is possible to fall from grace? If so, absolutely yes.

“You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from** grace**.” Gal 5:4

Now consider:

“For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men” Tit 2:11

I think you would agree that not all will be saved. If so, then you must therefore also believe that God’s grace can be rejected?

 

[hoser]

Let me explain why this response from a protestant came about. I came across a religion board with a thread titled, “Can you lose your salvation.” I responded with a bunch of quotes from the bible stating that you can indeed lose your salvation. He responded himself with his interpretation of those passages, and of course I responded to that stating that his once saved always saved beliefs are unfounded, unbiblical and frankly unrealistic. Soooo, this is the last response from him. Basically, I don’t think he could argue against all the Bible verses that I put before him and he responded with the quote that I started this thread out with. Thanks to all for you (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[ccav]

hoser:

Someone posted this to me, can you help me answert it?

"The major difference between your belief and the Protestant belief is the analytical view of justification vs. the synthetic view.

Correction to this poster: Catholics believe in the imparted righteousness of Christ-rightousness that belongs to Christ but He gives to us. Protestants believe in the imputed-that Christ’s righteousness is declared ours in a legal fashion only.

You, as a Catholic, believe that in order for one to be justified, on that day of judgment they must be deemed righteous.

This poster’s understanding is incomplete. It is Christ’s righteousness in us that Christ gives to us. That is the imparted part that I mentioned above.

What do you think God meant when He said “YOUR righteousness is but filthy rags.”

Which is exactly why we need Christ’s rightousness and not our own. Not imputed neither, but imparted.

The Protestant believes that in order for one to be justified, a synthesis must occur.

Correction to poster: Protestants believe in imparted (legal) righousness, not imputed rightousness.

We know that God needs no microscope to look inside us and find all kinds of unrighteousness and sin. Therefore, to be justified, our sinful and unrighteous state of being, on that day of judgment, must be covered by the cloak of Jesus’ righteousness.

Compare to what Jesus said in Matthew 23:27-28 ‘“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.”’ Now why anyone would think this is a preferable state is beyond me.

Not unlike the Catholic “treasury of merit” (stored “extra” righteousness from those who did more than enough to earn justification) where the Church would dip into that treasury and scoop out a serving of merit for those who need it.

All of which was Christ’s righousness to begin with.

To the Protestant, Jesus’ meritorious actions and infinite righteousness is enough to cover us all… us being those who truly have faith in Him as our Savior and LORD. I liken this “covering” by Christ’s righteousness to the covering of Adam and Eve’s nakedness.

Notice that in Genesis chapter 3, Adam and Even covered their nakedness as a responce to sin and God didn’t seem to pleased about it.

Now I think you would agree, that faith cannot come without grace. Is that correct? If so, as a Catholic and one who believes you can be graced and achieve salvation but can also lose it, then you must therefore also believe that God’s grace can return to Him void and rejected?"

Note Hebrews 10:26-29 ‘If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. *How much more severely * do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?’

I’ll let that Bible verse speak for itself.