Questions on Trent

[guanophore]

The Catholic paradigm does not state that good works (by which I mean good works done out of love for God) are “required” for justification.

Well, that “depends”. Certainly it is the one who does the will of God (good works) who will be justified, says ST. Paul. This does not mean that persons who are unable to do good works will not be justified.

Faith that saves is faith that works.

I absolutely deny that are “necessary” for justification in my Catholic paradigm.

I guess it is good you know that you are creating your own “Catholic paradigm” that is uniquely yours. One has to wonder, why would you reject what was handed down from the Apostles in favor of your own “paradigm”?

Furthermore, in no sense can a fallen man “rely on” good works for justification.

At least this much is consistent with Catholic faith.

The Catholic paradigm is absolutely contrary to this, because in the paradigm, it is absolutely impossible for a human to do a good work (a work pleasing to God), before that person is justified.

Actually, I think you have Catholicism confused with Calvanism, which does teach this. This view emanates from the heresy of total depravity.

When you read Acts ch. 10, at what point do you believe Cornelius was justified?

It’s absolutely impossible because a person can’t do a work which is pleasing to God before that person has been given the supernatural virtue of agape.

God has created humans with the ability to choose between good and evil. We can choose the good, ,even when we are not in a state of grace. If this were not possible, no one could be saved!

And if a person were given the virtue of agape, that person would be justified, because God does not give agape until the moment of justification.

It sounds like you are really wrestling here with a lot of Calvanistic ideas. As Jesus noted, even the ungodly can give love to their children.

In justification, the gift of the supernatural virtues of faith, hope, and love are all at once, and that person’s former sins are forgiven. This gift is totally gratuitous on the part of God. The gift is not given because of anything pleasing that the person has done, but only because of God’s goodness and love for man, a love by which He gave up his Son to suffer and die for man’s sins

Yes, this is Catholic. However, this is not the ONLY way that man receives grace from God.

All this is referring to initial justification which is achieved completely through baptism. At baptism we are justified and given a perfect justification. Good works help us to hold on to it and grow in it (progressive justification). I think we need to distiguish between justifcation and increase of justice, because if we dont it seems that we need our good works to come into a state of godliness which is only achieved by being infused with grace at baptism.

I agree with you, it is helpful to distinguish between initial justification, and the process of sanctification ( increase in justice/grace)

So yes, justification is in a sense dependent on sanctification.

I am not sure what you mean by this. The soul that is baptized is justified before God. The soul that is martryd for Christ is justified, in neither case may any progress toward holiness follow. Some are baptized on their deathbed, so there is no opportunity to grow in holiness.

**

But not in the sense that perfect sanctification is required for justification.**

This just sounds like you are confused…

Vinny213:

But only in the sense that in the process of sanctification, a justified man will do good works, and these works will increase his justification/merit before God.

This much is Catholic.

 

[Vinny213]

When I say that good works are not necesary or required for justification I am referring to initial justification not increase in justice received.

 

[fhansen]

When I say that good works are not necesary or required for justification I am referring to initial justification not increase in justice received.

This is true. But one does not necessarily remain in a just state if they refuse to cooperate with grace-with God’s plans for us-afterwards.

 

[Vinny213]

Well, that “depends”. Certainly it is the one who does the will of God (good works) who will be justified, says ST. Paul. This does not mean that persons who are unable to do good works will not be justified.

I am talking about initial justification here were someone ungodly becomes godly and enters in a justified state. Good works are not necesary to come into a relationship with God. However to increase in that justice received and hold on to it, good works are required. But increase of justice is not the same thing as justification which is solely transfer from a kingdom of darkness to light and that happens at baptism. So we cannnot merit justification by our works or faith but we can merit increase in justice and grace.

 

[Vinny213]

Quote from Luther:
The first and chief article is this: Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, died for our sins and was raised again for our justification (Romans 3:24-25). He alone is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29), and God has laid on Him the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:6). All have sinned and are justified freely, without their own works and merits, by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood (Romans 3:23-25). This is necessary to believe. This cannot be otherwise acquired or grasped by any work, law or merit. Therefore, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us … Nothing of this article can be yielded or surrendered, even though heaven and earth and everything else falls (Mark 13:31).[7]

I think a Roman Catholic can agree with everything that is said above, especially as how it relates to initial justification. We are not justfied by our merits or works but soley by God’s grace at baptism.

 

[fhansen]

Well, that “depends”. Certainly it is the one who does the will of God (good works) who will be justified, says ST. Paul. This does not mean that persons who are unable to do good works will not be justified.

I am talking about initial justification here were someone ungodly becomes godly and enters in a justified state. Good works are not necesary to come into a relationship with God. However to increase in that justice received and hold on to it, good works are required. But increase of justice is not the same thing as justification which is solely transfer from a kingdom of darkness to light and that happens at baptism. So we cannnot merit justification by our works or faith but we can merit increase in justice and grace.

We can transfer ourselves back into the kingdom of darkness. What happens if, after initial justification, a person refuses to cooperate with Gods grace? I think passages such as Luke 12:48, Matt 25:31-46, and the Parable of the Talents make it pretty clear that there are expectations for how we’ll respond to what we’re given, our capabilities et al taken into account.

 

[guanophore]

Quote from Luther:
The first and chief article is this: Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, died for our sins and was raised again for our justification (Romans 3:24-25). He alone is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29), and God has laid on Him the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:6). All have sinned and are justified freely, without their own works and merits, by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood (Romans 3:23-25). This is necessary to believe. This cannot be otherwise acquired or grasped by any work, law or merit. Therefore, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us … Nothing of this article can be yielded or surrendered, even though heaven and earth and everything else falls (Mark 13:31).[7]

I think a Roman Catholic can agree with everything that is said above, especially as how it relates to initial justification. We are not justfied by our merits or works but soley by God’s grace at baptism.

Yes this is Catholic TEaching. Unfortunately, all his many years in Catholic seminary and monasteries were insufficient to pursuade Luther that this is the case. This might be a commentary on how obscured the Gospel of Grace had become in his day and time.

 

[guanophore]

We can transfer ourselves back into the kingdom of darkness. What happens if, after initial justification, a person refuses to cooperate with Gods grace? I think passages such as Luke 12:48, Matt 25:31-46, and the Parable of the Talents make it pretty clear that there are expectations for how we’ll respond to what we’re given, our capabilities et al taken into account.

Yes, the nature of sin has not changed. Sin still separates us from God.

And further, if we do fall from grace by choosing to sin, our last state is WORSE than the first!

Matt 12:43-45
“When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it wanders through waterless regions looking for a resting place, but it finds none. 44 Then it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ When it comes, it finds it empty, swept, and put in order. 45 Then it goes and brings along seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and live there; and the last state of that person is worse than the first. So will it be also with this evil generation.”

2 Peter 2:19-3:1
20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment that was passed on to them. 22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb,

“The dog turns back to its own vomit,”

and,

“The sow is washed only to wallow in the mud.”

 

[Vinny213]

Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, ‘justifying righteousness’ is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous. Melanchthon drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former ‘justification’ and the latter ‘sanctification’ or regeneration.’ For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing… The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. Melanchthon’s concept of forensic justification diverged radically from this. As it was taken up by virtually all the major reformers subsequently, it came to represent a standard difference between Protestant and Roman Catholic from then on…The Council of Trent…reaffirmed the views of Augustine on the nature of justification… the concept of forensic justification actually represents a development in Luther’s thought… Trent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process…

Found this quote from McGrath. So the event/decalartion in rcism is baptism, right? At baptism we are decalred rightous by infused grace, right?

 

[brb3]

We can transfer ourselves back into the kingdom of darkness. What happens if, after initial justification, a person refuses to cooperate with Gods grace? I think passages such as Luke 12:48, Matt 25:31-46, and the Parable of the Talents make it pretty clear that there are expectations for how we’ll respond to what we’re given, our capabilities et al taken into account.

Yes, but these u cite all apply to SUBSEQUENT justification. We have no works worthy unto salvation, until we are first justified InChrist. Christ taught, “you can do nothing apart from me”. Once we are acceptable to the Father, thru GOOD WORK of Christ ( the Cross), via FAITH in His Work on our behalf, …we need Sacramental Baptism & Confirmation…to have prior sins removed from our souls, washed by blood of Savior, and Sealed (soul marked) by Holy Spirit. Only now can we offer any works pleasing to God, and they are only possible because of grace received.

Those IN CHRIST …will do ‘gracious’ works. Those that don’t …won’t be In Christ for very long…except they repent !

 

[brb3]

Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, ‘justifying righteousness’ is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous. Melanchthon drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former ‘justification’ and the latter ‘sanctification’ or regeneration.’ For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing… The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. Melanchthon’s concept of forensic justification diverged radically from this. As it was taken up by virtually all the major reformers subsequently, it came to represent a standard difference between Protestant and Roman Catholic from then on…The Council of Trent…reaffirmed the views of Augustine on the nature of justification… the concept of forensic justification actually represents a development in Luther’s thought… Trent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process…

Found this quote from McGrath. So the event/decalartion in rcism is baptism, right? At baptism we are decalred rightous by infused grace, right?

Right ! All grace is infused …into the soul of man/woman. Not a cloaking over us, nothing external, alway deeply within, cleansing us snow-white, FULLY GRACED !!

 

[guanophore]

Found this quote from McGrath. So the event/decalartion in rcism is baptism, right? At baptism we are decalred rightous by infused grace, right?

Great find Vinny! I am going to save that one. It is very succint and clear.

Yes, we are declared righteous because we are MADE righteous.

Rom 4:4-5
4 Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. 5 But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness.

Rom 4:23-25

23 Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.

This term is translated “reckoned”, a term used in accounting to designate a credit on an account, and “imputed” (a declaration assigning something) which is more of a legal term.

It was also used to take an inventory of stock. So Catholics understand that the declaration of righteousness happens because God has actually made a deposit to our account - put forth an inventory of grace (infused righteousness), where those like Melancthon who espouse forensic justification, it is just a declaration without any actual “deposit” into the account. In other words, we are still in the hole because of our sins, but God “hides” us behind Jesus, and God “reckons” our due by looking at His son.

 

[fhansen]

Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, ‘justifying righteousness’ is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous. Melanchthon drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former ‘justification’ and the latter ‘sanctification’ or regeneration.’ For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing… The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. Melanchthon’s concept of forensic justification diverged radically from this. As it was taken up by virtually all the major reformers subsequently, it came to represent a standard difference between Protestant and Roman Catholic from then on…The Council of Trent…reaffirmed the views of Augustine on the nature of justification… the concept of forensic justification actually represents a development in Luther’s thought… Trent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process…

Found this quote from McGrath. So the event/decalartion in rcism is baptism, right? At baptism we are decalred rightous by infused grace, right?

Yes, we’re made righteous at Baptism, at least that’s the formal way God has provided. I think it’s easier to see how the OSAS belief comes about from the Reformed position too. When justification is sort of “cheap”, because it’s merely declared as with the forensic concept rather than real as with sanctfying grace, then there’s really nothing “there” to strive to retain and grow in, no real change to begin with. It’s sort of hard to lose nothing.

 

[Vinny213]

A couple of more goodies from McGrath. People can save these quotes if they like them as I noticed guanophore is already doing.

Starting with Augustine, the Roman Catholic tradition has understood justification as the entire process by which God forgives and then transforms Christians. Based on their reading of the use of “justification” in Paul’s letters, the Reformers took justification to refer specifically to God’s forgiveness and acceptance. The term “sanctification” was used to refer to the lifelong process of transformation. Thus the Roman Catholic term “justification” effectively includes both what Protestants refer to as “justification” and “sanctification.” This difference in definitions can result in confusion, effectively exaggerating the disagreement. However the difference in definitions reflects a difference in substance. In the Protestant concept, justification is a status before God that is entirely the result of God’s activity and that continues even when humans sin. Thus using different words for justification and sanctification reflects a distinction between aspects of salvation that are entirely the result of God’s activity, and those that involve human cooperation. The Roman Catholic tradition uses a single term, in part, because it does not recognize a distinction of this type. For the Roman Catholic tradition, while everything originates with God, the entire process of justification requires human cooperation, and serious sin compromises it.[1]

The Catholic tradition, following Augustine, has identified justifying works as those works performed by the regenerate, i.e., the baptized, i.e., the justified. Works do not bring bring about the state of justification–God does this gratuitously in the sacrament of baptism–but they do contribute to our growth in justification. Please note that in the traditional Latin usage, “justification” comprehends initial justification, growth in justification (sanctification), and final justification. Hence it is meaningful for Catholics to speak of works as justifying–not in the sense that they earn God’s favor, not in the sense that they effect the transition from a state of sin to a state of righteousness, but in the sense that they contribute to our growth in holiness and sanctity and thus deepen our communion with the Holy Trinity.

 

[pablope]

A couple of more goodies from McGrath. People can save these quotes if they like them as I noticed guanophore is already doing.

The Catholic tradition, following Augustine, has identified justifying works as those works performed by the regenerate, i.e., the baptized, i.e., the justified. Works do not bring bring about the state of justification–God does this gratuitously in the sacrament of baptism–but they do contribute to our growth in justification. Please note that in the traditional Latin usage, “justification” comprehends initial justification, growth in justification (sanctification), and final justification. Hence it is meaningful for Catholics to speak of works as justifying–not in the sense that they earn God’s favor, not in the sense that they effect the transition from a state of sin to a state of righteousness, but in the sense that they contribute to our growth in holiness and sanctity and thus deepen our communion with the Holy Trinity.

Is the last one from Mcgrath too?

I am saving them to share with some protestant brothers who ask about our differences. These are great explanations.

Anyway, I researched Mcgrath…he is Alister Mcgrath…anglican priest/apologist/theology professor and much more.

Is he the right one?

 

[brb3]

A couple of more goodies from McGrath. People can save these quotes if they like them as I noticed guanophore is already doing.

Starting with Augustine, the Roman Catholic tradition has understood justification as the entire process by which God forgives and then transforms Christians. Based on their reading of the use of “justification” in Paul’s letters, the Reformers took justification to refer specifically to God’s forgiveness and acceptance. The term “sanctification” was used to refer to the lifelong process of transformation. Thus the Roman Catholic term “justification” effectively includes both what Protestants refer to as “justification” and “sanctification.” This difference in definitions can result in confusion, effectively exaggerating the disagreement. However the difference in definitions reflects a difference in substance. In the Protestant concept, justification is a status before God that is entirely the result of God’s activity and that continues even when humans sin. Thus using different words for justification and sanctification reflects a distinction between aspects of salvation that are entirely the result of God’s activity, and those that involve human cooperation. The Roman Catholic tradition uses a single term, in part, because it does not recognize a distinction of this type. For the Roman Catholic tradition, while everything originates with God, the entire process of justification requires human cooperation, and serious sin compromises it.[1]

The Catholic tradition, following Augustine, has identified justifying works as those works performed by the regenerate, i.e., the baptized, i.e., the justified. Works do not bring bring about the state of justification–God does this gratuitously in the sacrament of baptism–but they do contribute to our growth in justification. Please note that in the traditional Latin usage, “justification” comprehends initial justification, growth in justification (sanctification), and final justification. Hence it is meaningful for Catholics to speak of works as justifying–not in the sense that they earn God’s favor, not in the sense that they effect the transition from a state of sin to a state of righteousness, but in the sense that they contribute to our growth in holiness and sanctity and thus deepen our communion with the Holy Trinity.

Sweet !!
Alister McGrath has a great grasp of this, superb intelligence, and top rate apologist !! We all do well to explain as he …

 

[Vinny213]

I should clarify that McGrath is in no way trying to argue for the catholic position (he is a protestant after all). He still beleives to justify means to declare rightous and is forensic. He thinks Augustine and the fathers were all misled by a poor latin translation of the word. He still brings interesting insights of course which is why I site him. I suggest reading his magnum opus “A History of Justification,” which is the best work I have ever read on the subject. He says in it that the inherent rightousness that justifies in RCism is not based on our accomplishments or obediance but is a gift of God unattained by us and given to us as a gift by infusion at baptism. He slams evangelicals who think that the Catholic position is that our inherent rightousness is accomplished by us in sanctification instead of being a infused gift. He clarifies that Catholic justificaton inludes renewal but is not based on renewal but on infused rightousness which is the cause and source of renewal.

 

[brb3]

I should clarify that McGrath is in no way trying to argue for the catholic position (he is a protestant after all). He still beleives to justify means to declare rightous and is forensic. He thinks Augustine and the fathers were all misled by a poor latin translation of the word. He still brings interesting insights of course which is why I site him. I suggest reading his magnum opus “A History of Justification,” which is the best work I have ever read on the subject. He says in it that the inherent rightousness that justifies in RCism is not based on our accomplishments or obediance but is a gift of God unattained by us and given to us as a gift by infusion at baptism. He slams evangelicals who think that the Catholic position is that our inherent rightousness is accomplished by us in sanctification instead of being a infused gift. He clarifies that Catholic justificaton inludes renewal but is not based on renewal but on infused rightousness which is the cause and source of renewal.

As a former Evangelical, I accept his correction about the errant ideas they often hold on Catholic justification/sanctification. Catholics need to do a better job dispelling the confussion. I’ll get his book on this topic. I like listening him on radio !!

 

[fhansen]

Hence it is meaningful for Catholics to speak of works as justifying–not in the sense that they earn God’s favor, not in the sense that they effect the transition from a state of sin to a state of righteousness, but in the sense that they contribute to our growth in holiness and sanctity and thus deepen our communion with the Holy Trinity.

But there’s still the sense that our growth in holiness and sanctity, which includes abstinence from sin, is expected and necessarily part and parcel of our justification/salvation.

 

[brb3]

I should clarify that McGrath is in no way trying to argue for the catholic position (he is a protestant after all). He still beleives to justify means to declare rightous and is forensic. He thinks Augustine and the fathers were all misled by a poor latin translation of the word. He still brings interesting insights of course which is why I site him. I suggest reading his magnum opus “A History of Justification,” which is the best work I have ever read on the subject. He says in it that the inherent rightousness that justifies in RCism is not based on our accomplishments or obediance but is a gift of God unattained by us and given to us as a gift by infusion at baptism. He slams evangelicals who think that the Catholic position is that our inherent rightousness is accomplished by us in sanctification instead of being a infused gift. He clarifies that Catholic justificaton inludes renewal but is not based on renewal but on infused rightousness which is the cause and source of renewal.

The Catholic way of seeing / explaining the need for ‘ongoing’ renewal, growth, maturity IN CHRIST … is taken right from scripture. Christ taught this growth to ‘perfection’ and the Apostles recorded his words and continued his teaching in the Churches they established.
The Parable of the Sower, the Kingdom like a living Tree growing to fullness, Christ teaching we must be perfect …to enter heaven, Paul teaching there is ONE Unified Living Body with each believer a part of that Body.
Any Living Organism has ongoing basic requirements to survive and thrive. The body has its needs, the Soul its needs. If we don’t feed our souls spiritual food, we will turn back to the secular apples of Eden. W/O allowing Christ to supply our daily spiritual needs, via sanctifying graces, we can’t persevere for long. Thats why we struggle, and don’t grow to maturity…except we keep the Sacraments, and consume the Eucharist …“as often as you meet”.