Regeneration/Born-Again

[itsjustdave1988]

sandusky:

I don’t understand how you can say that Catholics do not believe that they are saved by the law, and that it is just a “misunderstanding.”

Canon I of the Council of Trent’s canons on Justification:

***If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema. ***

We are NOT justified by the law apart from the grace of God, according to Trent. Nor are we justified by our own works apart from the grace of God.

Instead, Catholics teach as does St. James that we are justified by works and not by faith alone. That’s not the same as being justified by the law alone. But instead it means that the work of Christ in us is what justifies.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

sandusky,

Your errors derive from your lack of understanding of what merit means. There are two kinds of merit: 1) condign merit, 2) congruous merit.

Condign merit is “just payment for work complete,” like a paycheck for completed work. With regard to salvation, only Christ has merited in this manner. Congruous merit is called by Catholic teaching “quasi-merit.” It is like a gratuity given to a waiter, or a military medal. It is not owed, but is more of a gift. Christians merit in this manner.

From the condign merit of Christ, Christians are rewarded (congrous merit), as a gift not a payment, for their perseverance. Such perseverence, however, does not set up a condign obligation upon God, and so we are not saying that by persevering in the law of Christ that God owes us eternal life. Not at all. We rely upon the mercy, the goodness of God to give us the GIFT of eternal life. We have faith and hope because of his Holy Word that this is so.

Scripture says:

**James 1:3 **: “for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness (Gk hupomone).”

Thus, faith is a distinct gift from perseverance or “steadfastness.” Faith must be present and tested before perseverance is “produced” (Gk Katergazomai)

Katergazomai: means 1) to perform, accomplish, achieve; 2) to work out i.e. to do that from which something results a) of things: bring about, result in; 3) to fashion i.e. render one fit for a thing) (cf. Thayer’s Lexicon)

Furthermore, perseverence is rewarded (congrous merit) with eternal life according to Scripture:
James 1:4: And let steadfastness (Gk hupomone) have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

Rom 2:7 : “to those who by patience in well-doing (Gk hupomone) seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life”

Luke 21:19 : “By your endurance (Gk hupomone) you will gain your lives.”

Matt 10:22: “and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures (Gk hupomone) to the end will be saved.”

Matt 24:13 “But he who endures (Gk hupomone) to the end will be saved.”

Mark 13:13 “and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures (Gk hupomone) to the end will be saved.”

James 1:12: “Blessed is the man who endures (Gk hupomone) trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life which God has promised to those who love him”

2 Tim 2:12: "if we endure (Gk hupomone), we shall also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us;

We are crowned with gifts from God, only if we persevere to the end. To do so, we must keep God’s commandments, because as St. Paul teaches us: “An athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.” (2 Tim 2:5)

That surely doesn’t mean St. Paul thinks we can be saved by following the rules. Not do Catholics believe we can be saved by following the law. We are only saved by the grace of Christ. But just because we are saved by grace, that doesn’t mean we have no rules.

Additionally, from the glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Salvation: The forgiveness of sins and restoration of friendship with God, which can be done by God alone.

**Justification:**The gracious action of God which frees us from sin and communicates “the rightesouness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” (Rom 3:22). Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.

**Merit: **The ***reward ***which God promises and gives to shoe who love him and by his grace perform good works. ***One cannot “merit” justification or eternal life; the source of any merit we have before God is due to the grace of Christ in us. ***

Thus, congruous merit means nothing more than what Rom 2:7 asserts: “to those who by patience in well-doing (Gk hupomone) seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life”

As stated earlier, “belief” according to St. John is the opposite of “disobey.” The faithful must therefore be like the athlete St. Paul speaks of who “competes according to the rules.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Condign merit is called in Latin “*meritum adœquatum”, *which means “equal reward.” This is the reward due to the work accomplished once and for all at Calvary.

Congruous merit is called in Latin “*meritum inadœquatum” *which means “non-equal reward.” This is the undeserved reward of eternal life given to Christians by virtue of Christ’s condign merit and God’s loving mercy.

 

[bene7]

itsjustdave1988:

Condign merit is called in Latin “*meritum adœquatum”, *which means “equal reward.” This is the reward due to the work accomplished once and for all at Calvary.

Reward given to whom?

Congruous merit is called in Latin “*meritum inadœquatum” *which means “non-equal reward.” This is the undeserved reward of eternal life given to Christians by virtue of Christ’s condign merit and God’s loving mercy.

l’m having a hard time with the word “reward.” Can you tell me how you reconcile these verses with that term?

I understand “mercy” in the verse below, but how does “reward” fit in?

TITUS 3:4-7 "But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that being justified by His grace we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

How do you reconcile “reward of eternal life” with “free gift” in the following verse?

ROM 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

This is a serious question.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[Redbandito]

bene7:

You missed two and most of your content does not coincide with the Scriptural text in which they’re found, or with whom they’re made.Oh, I see you did a little backpedaling here, eh?

No Bene, you just finally did a little reading. This has been my position from the beginning. You have just been so intent on proving me wrong, you ignored it. If you read, several people have agreed with me in this thread, and said the exact same thing.

 

[Redbandito]

sandusky:

You are wrong. Common sense insists that in every epistle written, those addressed include believers, and unbelievers; they exist side by side within the church, as illustrated by Christ in the parable of the wheat and the tares.

What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with what I wrote. Stay on topic.

 

[Redbandito]

sandusky:

I don’t understand how you can say that Catholics do not believe that they are saved by the law, and that it is just a “misunderstanding.”

You are bound by Trent, which states in its Sixth Session, Chapter XVI, on the fruits of justification:

“…to those *who work well unto the end *and trust in God, eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, and as a reward promised by God himself, to be faithfully given to their good works and merits…nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life.” (emphasis mine).

See also Canons 9, 11, 12, 17, 23, 24, and 32 following the sixteen chapters on justification and what they declare.

Those statements have never been renounced and are still binding upon you.

If there is a misunderstanding, it is on your part, not mine, or bene’s.

Wrong! You don’t listen, thus you don’t comprehend. The error lies in your understanding of law. You just refuse to accept reality.

 

[Redbandito]

bene7:

Maybe a good way for you to possibly understand it, Red, is thinking of “old” technology vs. “new” technology in computers. The landfills are full of “old” technology. Why? Because the “old” is OBSOLETE. Neither the old hardware or the old software is compatible with the new. It can’t even be updated, it’s useless. Hence, it’s thrown out. The believer is called by faith under the NC. He has absolutely no relationship with the OC. They are completely incompatible with each other. That’s why you get from us, who understand the difference, nothing but “error” messages. Jesus presented this same truth using the "technology of His day, i.e., old wine skins and new wine skins. Try to put the new in the old and what happens? The wine skins burst. They’re totally incompatible. Comprende, amigo?

Blessing,
Bene

This is a terrible analogy to support your thesis. In fact, it supports mine. Because it is through the old technology that they were able to develop the new. So, while the old technology becomes obsolete, it is solely because the new has transformed and improved on the old. You seem to continue to miss the point. I can’t keep nursing along there Chief. Either recognize what I am saying or we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. Every post, it seems I have to re-state what I am saying because you keep missing the point. So HERE IT IS FOR THE LAST TIME: The old becomes obsolete due to the fulfillment (which I believe you and definitely Sandusky have already backtracked and admitted) and the TRANSFORMATION of the old. That does not mean the old is still another valid alternative to new. Rather, it means that the new was created out of the context of the old and that it fulfills the old. That’s as good as I can do. If you cannot logically grasp that, than it was good talking to you. God bless.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

bene7:

Reward given to whom?l’m having a hard time with the word “reward.” Can you tell me how you reconcile these verses with that term?

I understand “mercy” in the verse below, but how does “reward” fit in?

TITUS 3:4-7 “But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that being justified by His grace we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”

How do you reconcile “reward of eternal life” with “free gift” in the following verse?

ROM 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

This is a serious question.

Blessings,
Bene

Matthew 5:12 “Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven”

Matthew 6:4 “your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”

Matthew 6:6 “your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”

Matthew 6:18: “your Father who sees in secret will reward you”

Col 3:24: “knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you are serving the Lord Christ.”

Are you still having trouble reconciling Scripture with Scripture. If so, let me know and we can discuss some more.

 

[wpr]

I don’t understand what you are saying. Are you denying that unbelievers stand side by side with believers in Christ’s Church?

No, only that St Paul did not speak in code to those who he was writing. Nor did he teach that justification is imputed irrrevocably. He rather was in it for the long haul and encouraged his children to do the same. (I think we may have some point of agreement here)

You seem to reconcile Scripture that cleary says we can fall away by attempting to tell me St Paul was really only speaking of those who do not believe (have not received imputed irrevocable rightiousness) and not warning those who do beleive (despite their actions) that they are in error and may put themselves in jeapardy due to their own actions.

Frankly, I think your interpretation is absurd. St Paul speaks of himself as having the potential to be “disqualified”. Is he disingenuous?

First, why tell the “believers” who have received imputed irrevocable rightiousness that their actions put them in jeapardy when, as you see it, St Paul could not possibly have meant their actions may put them in jeapardy?

Second, why would St Paul warn the “non-beleivers” (those who lack imputed irrevocable rightiousness) that their actions put them in jeapardy? It is not their actions, but only their lack of faith that can do so. Right?

Or why not get the the point and just tell them they are proving not to be among the predestined elect?

How is it that faith justifies when if one does not show faith in works (or obediance or however you may define the fruit of real faith) then one does not have faith?

Show me your faith without works and I will show you my faith by my works. Faith and works go hand in hand and are not at odds when the works are done in Christ (Catholic!). (See my awesome brother Dave earlier in this thread for a much better explanation)

Works done in Christ are not condemned by God. You seem to lose this point completely. St Paul does not condemn works done in Christ. Why does St Paul tell me that of faith hope and love, love is the most important. What is love other than faith in action?

Is the fruit of faith “obediance”? Yes, God requires obediance, but not in a legalistic view. That is once you received this gift of imputed irrevocable rightiousness, therefore, now you now owe God obediance otherwise your faith is not proved in His eyes? Why is that preferable to the Catholic view of God viewing our works through grace?

I am a living breathing human. I witness that good works did not spontaneously combust after some moment where rightiousness was imputed to me. You may reply then that my faith is still lacking and that I am not among the elect. So be it. Yours is a depressing view in my book.

Furthermore, the way I see it your view requires a lopsided understanding of predestination as the next step. Indeed you elude to it by insisting St Paul wrote in such codes. The slope is slippery. So I look to Augustine for some balance.

Frankly, as I eluded to earlier, nothing repulses me more than an over reaching reliance on predestination to resolve matters of interpretation. I do not see how you avoid this slippery slope in your theology. I beleive you make God the author of sin at worst and at best you must dissallow that He wants everyone to be saved.

I am not claiming to be a master theologin. Obviously many on this thread are way beyond me, even you (Sandusky). But you have not convinced me of any major point. (although frankly, with humility, I have learned from you).

B]Oh, but He does. It is your insistence, and I agree, that only those who endure to the end will be saved. If they left, they never truly believed because they did not endure to the end.

They did not leave, they still beleive. St Paul is warning them that their actions may put them in jeapardy. They are like the seed that fell on rocky ground. Is it not possible to rescue them and plant the sprout in their heart of good soil?

If you beleive they have to endure to the end why are you not Catholic? (please don’t take offense)

 

[Redbandito]

To Sandusky, but even moreso to Bene7. As I received Our Lord in the blessed Eucharist today, I was strongly convicted about something, and felt I needed to approach you with it. I just wanted to apologize for my tone. I have to admit that I do get a little irritated when people attempt to espouse a view of Catholicism that is incorrect and then try to argue against that view. Even still, I must strive much harder to be charitable even in our disagreements. I hope you can accept my apologies. God bless both of you and have a happy new year!

 

[Philthy]

I said:
This is inaccurate. Of course Catholics believe that rebirth is a washing by the Spirit, and one of the times it occurs is at Baptism. You are dead wrong if you meant to imply that the Catholic view of Baptism is that it accomplishes something apart from the holy Spirit.
And you replied:

sandusky:

”One of the times it occurs?” Philthy, scripture speaks of a washing of regeneration, not washings of regenerations. It is a singular experience.

So you agree that your statement was inaccurate when you implied that the Catholic view of Baptism is that it accomplishes something apart from the holy Spirit? Your “Im sorry I was mistaken, or I didn’t mean to say that” is always so hard to hear.
I believe God can regenerate someone anytime he chooses and by any means he chooses. One of those means is water Baptism - the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit, that is the context for my statement “one of the times”. This event, happens many times in a day, BTW, though not to the same person.

sandusky:
So because the word sacrifice occurs in this passage, it signifies ongoing sacrifice? What are you saying?

Im saying that Paul calls us to offer sacrifice to God; holy and pleasing to him. I am saying that Paul says this post crucifixion.
I am saying that Rom 12-1 does not line up well with your contention that all sacrifice has ended because Christ is risen. And I am saying that sacrifice remains pleasing to God, but the sacrificial mode has been transformed by Christs crucifixion. It is no longer the ritual sacrifices, but the one eternal sacrifice.

Phil

 

[bene7]

itsjustdave1988:

Matthew 5:12 “Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven”

Matthew 6:4 “your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”

Matthew 6:6 “your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”

Matthew 6:18: “your Father who sees in secret will reward you”

Col 3:24: “knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you are serving the Lord Christ.”

Are you still having trouble reconciling Scripture with Scripture. If so, let me know and we can discuss some more.

Thanks Dave, but if you would answer my question in respect to the verses on salvation itself that I provided, that would might help me to understand the catholic mind on salvation and eternal life being defined as a “reward/merit”. None of the verses you provided address actual salvation or eternal life.

Blessins,
Bene

 

[bene7]

Redbandito:

To Sandusky, but even moreso to Bene7. As I received Our Lord in the blessed Eucharist today, I was strongly convicted about something, and felt I needed to approach you with it. I just wanted to apologize for my tone. I have to admit that I do get a little irritated when people attempt to espouse a view of Catholicism that is incorrect and then try to argue against that view. Even still, I must strive much harder to be charitable even in our disagreements. I hope you can accept my apologies. God bless both of you and have a happy new year!

Thanks for the apology, Red. From the beginning of entering into debate with you I detected an edge to your posts, but I just considered that part of your personality. Never any personal offense taken by me, and I do realize these kinds of discussions can spark an irritation in all of us. But you’re right in that we must always strive to exercise charity when in disagreement. For the believer it’s called “walking in the Spirit.” Not always easy. And we certainly have within the history of Christianity enough examples of when men did not remain charitable toward those who thought differently (Catholics and Protestants). I have always found it interesting that in Scripture Christians are instructed on how to endure when being persecuted, but never instructed on how to persecute.

We do come from VERY different theological directions, it’s not just a matter of semantics, so we may never meet at a middle ground but in the end agree to disagree. But I do not consider it a waste of time to discuss/debate the issues. And don’t hesitate to rebuke me if I come across in a not so charitable way .

So “Happy New Year” to you too, my friend. And to all on this thread.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[sandusky]

itsjustdave1988:

Canon I of the Council of Trent’s canons on Justification:

If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

Sandusky:

Council of Trent Sixth Session, Chapter XVI, on the fruits of justification:

“…to those who work well unto the end and trust in God, eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, and as a reward promised by God himself, to be faithfully given to their good works and merits…nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life.” (emphasis mine).

itsjustdave1988:

We are NOT justified by the law apart from the grace of God, according to Trent. Nor are we justified by our own works apart from the grace of God.

Do you see a contradiction, Dave?

You are wrong. No one is justified by law, period; neither is anyone justified by works, period. Justification is by grace through faith.

itsjustdave1988:

Instead, Catholics teach as does St. James that we are justified by works and not by faith alone. That’s not the same as being justified by the law alone. But instead it means that the work of Christ in us is what justifies.

Again you are wrong. Justification is by grace through faith, alone.

You misunderstand James.

What does James mean by his statement: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (2:24)? It has always been urged by Roman Catholic apologists (see Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Chapters VII, X) that James 2:14-26 is a corrective to the Protestant (not the Pauline) “heresy” that justification is through faith alone completely apart from works, for James expressly declares: “You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone [ex ergon dikaioutai anthropos kai ouk ek pisteos monon]” (2:24). But an exacting exegetical analysis of James’ teaching will disclose that in James’ teaching the accent falls upon the probative character of good works, whereas in the Pauline polemic the accent falls without question upon the judicially constitutive and declarative character of justification. Paul and James clearly mean something different by their use of the words “justified,” ‘faith,” and “works,” and they turn to different places in Genesis and thus to different events in Abraham’s life to support their respective applications of Gen 15:6. This much should be denied by no one.

Whereas Paul intends by “justified” the actual act on God’s part whereby He pardons and imputes righteousness to the ungodly, James intends by “justified” the verdict which God declares when the actually (previously) justified man has demonstrated his actual righteous state by obedience and good works.

Whereas Paul intends by “faith” trustful repose in the merits of Christ alone for pardon and righteousness, James is addressing those whose “faith” was tending toward, if it had not already become, a cold, orthodox intellectualism in which bare assent is given to such propositions as “God is one”—which even the demons confess with seemingly greater appreciation, for they tremble—but which is devoid of any exhibition of love for the brethren.

Whereas Paul, when he repudiates “works,” intends by “works” “the works of the law,” that is, any and every work of whatever kind done for the sake of acquiring merit, James intends by “works” acts of kindness toward those in need performed as the fruit and evidence of a true and vital faith and the actual justified state. (2:14-17).

Whereas Paul is concerned with the question, how may a man achieve right standing before God, and turns to Gen 15:6 to find his answer, James is concerned with the question, how is a man to demonstrate that he has true faith and is therefore actually justified before God turns to Gen 22:9-10, as the probative “fulfillment” of Gen 15:6 (see Gen 22:12), to find his answer (2:21). Note his deixon, “show me”, and deixo, “I will show you in 2:18; his blepeis, “you see” in 2:22 and his horate, “you see” at the beginning of 2:24—the very verse under discussion: “You see that a man is justified by [his] works, and *not *by [his] faith alone.”

And that faith is not alone, it will be “proved” by works, but those works cannot save.

James deals with works in a purely probative manner with respect to faith.

If you deny that, then you must insist that scripture contradicts itself with respect to justification.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Redbandito:

To Sandusky, but even moreso to Bene7. As I received Our Lord in the blessed Eucharist today, I was strongly convicted about something, and felt I needed to approach you with it. I just wanted to apologize for my tone. I have to admit that I do get a little irritated when people attempt to espouse a view of Catholicism that is incorrect and then try to argue against that view. Even still, I must strive much harder to be charitable even in our disagreements. I hope you can accept my apologies. God bless both of you and have a happy new year!

I felt the same thing at Mass this morning. I can be condescending at times when I think accusations are thrusted out, when it may simply be honest questions. I too apologize to our separated brethren.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

You misunderstand James.

I disagree with you about what St. James is teaching, and so have the vast amount of Christians since the advent of Christianity.

 

[sandusky]

itsjustdave1988:

sandusky,

Your errors derive from your lack of understanding of what merit means. There are two kinds of merit: 1) condign merit, 2) congruous merit.

Condign merit is “just payment for work complete,” like a paycheck for completed work. With regard to salvation, only Christ has merited in this manner. Congruous merit is called by Catholic teaching “quasi-merit.” It is like a gratuity given to a waiter, or a military medal. It is not owed, but is more of a gift. Christians merit in this manner.

From the condign merit of Christ, Christians are rewarded (congrous merit), as a gift not a payment, for their perseverance. Such perseverence, however, does not set up a condign obligation upon God, and so we are not saying that by persevering in the law of Christ that God owes us eternal life. Not at all. We rely upon the mercy, the goodness of God to give us the GIFT of eternal life. We have faith and hope because of his Holy Word that this is so.

You know, Dave, you are attempting to explain to me Catholic theology. I know what you believe, and what you espouse is at odds with Trent’s pronouncements which are still in effect, and binding. You must believe that you merit eternal life.

In a convoluted way, you acknowledge that:

Congruous merit…is the undeserved reward of eternal life given to Christians…

Eternal life is presented in scripture as a GIFT, not a REWARD. The Christian is rewarded for his works, but not with eternal life, which is always presented as a GIFT.

Then you contradict yourself:

itsjustdave1988:

Merit: The reward which God promises and gives to shoe who love him and by his grace perform good works. One cannot “merit” justification or eternal life; the source of any merit we have before God is due to the grace of Christ in us.

Your elaborate explanations are nothing more than a cover-up of what is essentially a theology of works-righteousness. All you are doing is dancing around that fact.

itsjustdave1988:

Justification:The gracious action of God which frees us from sin and communicates “the rightesouness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” (Rom 3:22). Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.

Again, that is Catholic theology; it is not biblical theology.

Biblical justification is a one-time, declaration of righteousness made by God concerning the sinner. This is clearly seen in the opening of Rom 5: Therefore, having been justified…. That is Biblical, Pauline soteriology. It also a passive, aorist, participle. It is something done to/for the believer [God’s declaration of righteousness], not something the believer does for himself. And it is continuous—an irrevocable gift.

The O.T. word usually rendered “justify” is hitsdiq, the hiphil form of tsadaq. Brown, Driver, and Briggs lists only one instance where this word in the hiphil may mean “to make righteous” or “to turn to righteousness”—Dan 12:3. Otherwise, this word is ALWAYS used in a forensic or legal sense, as meaning, not “to make just or righteous, but “to declare judicially that one is in harmony with the law.” Note, for example, Dt. 25:1, “If there be a controversy between men, and they come into judgment, and the judges judge them; then they shall justify (hitsdiqu) the righteous, and condemn the wicked:. Here hitsdiq is contrasted with a word which means “to condemn”; thus the legal sense is intended. In Pro 17:15 we read, “He who justifies (matsdiq) the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord.” “Justifies” here cannot mean “to make righteous.” For certainly a person who made the wicked righteous would not be an abomination to the Lord. Clearly the forensic sense is meant: “pronounces or declares righteous.”

The same is true in the N.T which uses the verb dikaioo as “to justify.” It is used some 39 times, and is employed in the sense of “declaring someone righteous.” This is seen in Lk 18:14, Acts 13:39. In Paul’s writings, dikaioo is clearly used in a forensic or legal sense, as the declaring of a sinner to be righteous.

It is always forensic, and is not used in the sense of “an infusion of grace.”

That is a purely Catholic notion. Sanctification is separate from justification. No one is anymore justified than anyone else, though one may certainly be more sanctified than another; also, one is never anymore justified than the day it occurs. You co-mingle justification and sanctification; biblically, they are not related. At the time of justification, one is also sanctified, or “set apart,” but sanctification continues, justification is once and forever.

 

[sandusky]

itsjustdave1988:

I disagree with you about what St. James is teaching, and so have the vast amount of Christians since the advent of Christianity.

And so have vast amounts of Christians agreed.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

sandusky,

Do you know how silly you sound trying to tell me what Trent teaches? I always find it laughable when NON-Catholics pretend to know more about Catholic teaching that Catholics. As if they have any credibility what so ever.

I’m a post-grad student in Catholic theology, and I’ve studied Trent and all the councils of our Church, and the strawman you are attempting to build simply makes you look foolish and convinces nobody. The Catholic Church today teaches in accord with the doctrines of the Council of Trent. Your caricature of Catholic documents is as poor as your erroneous exegesis of Sacred Scripture. We can keep arguing over what Trent teaches, but I assure you that you will only look more ridiculous.

If you have questions about what Catholicism teaches, I’d be happy to share that with you. I f you are wondering what “merit” is, I can tell you. But don’t pretend that your caricature of Catholicism is actual Catholic teaching. It’s absurd.

Also, if you disagree with the first 1500 years of Christianity with regard to what the Bible teaches, fine. But stick to telling us what you believe, and have the common sense to know that we know our beliefs better than you do.