The Qualities of Justification

[brkn1]

The Catholic Encyclopedia defines the difference between the Protestant and Catholic qualities of justification in the following way:

Protestant: certainty, equality, the impossibility of ever losing it

Catholic: uncertainty, inequality, amissibility (you can lose it)

With this difference in mind, I would like to ask if a Catholic can ever have justification?
The understanding they give of justification as an uncertainty would preclude their claim of Baptism giving anyone even a moment of justification.
The reason I say this is because of (Romans 8:30) “Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called: and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified.”

The “…and whom He justified, them He also glorified.” messes up the RCC claim of any certainty about Baptism causing any justification.
If it does cause a person to become justified for even a moment, then that person HAS to eventually become glorified.

 

[RobHom]

Rather than start another pointless thread trying to “split hairs” why don’t you answer the questions put to you…or is it a trifle to difficult to do so:

Like this one:

3d…A man is born and raised a Christian, accepts Christ as his Savior…lives a good Christian life for many years, lets say 50 years, then one day…something tragic happens in his life, something that is inexplicable, and he goes nuts and walks into a Burger King full of moms and dads and kids on a Sunday afternoon with an AK-47 and kills 40 or 50 innocent people. He is captured and examined by no less than five Psychatrists and certified fully sane…just angry. Understands right and wrong, is mentally competent, and has proven it.

So, according to “your theology”:

He’s still “saved”, he is “guaranteed” salvation??

Unless of course what all the blather and bluster about the “elect vs the non-elect” is really little more than a religious ponzi scheme with a built in cop out to account for failures by declaring someone as having “never been saved” anyway?

Hmmmmm???

 

[brkn1]

Rather than start another pointless thread trying to “split hairs” why don’t you answer the questions put to you…or is it a trifle to difficult to do so:

Like this one:

3d…A man is born and raised a Christian, accepts Christ as his Savior…lives a good Christian life for many years, lets say 50 years, then one day…something tragic happens in his life, something that is inexplicable, and he goes nuts and walks into a Burger King full of moms and dads and kids on a Sunday afternoon with an AK-47 and kills 40 or 50 innocent people. He is captured and examined by no less than five Psychatrists and certified fully sane…just angry. Understands right and wrong, is mentally competent, and has proven it.

So, according to “your theology”:

He’s still “saved”, he is “guaranteed” salvation??

Unless of course what all the blather and bluster about the “elect vs the non-elect” is really little more than a religious ponzi scheme with a built in cop out to account for failures by declaring someone as having “never been saved” anyway?

Hmmmmm???

Well what if a space ship came …and …and …a straw-man argument … came out…and …really proved to be an idiotic argument? HHHHHHMMMMMMMMM?

 

[RobHom]

Well what if a space ship came …and …and …a straw-man argument … came out…and …really proved to be an idiotic argument? HHHHHHMMMMMMMMM?

You’re copping out…badly, and doing badly at it…

You make such highly definitive and supposedly theological righteous statements, and yet…when your hypothetically sound (?) ?theology? is put to a simple test as in “word problem” that requires you to provide the justification, either by simple “yes” or “no” or all the inane blather you can muster… YOU FAIL MISERABLY!

Sorry sport…and your cheap attempt at an “ad hominem” is proof thereof… And your rapid bailout from the site is confirmation as well… Not so sure of your “beliefs” are you??? In fantasy land, anything can work…but in reality, uh-huh, nope.

 

[brkn1]

Rather than start another pointless thread trying to “split hairs” why don’t you answer the questions put to you…or is it a trifle to difficult to do so:

Like this one:

3d…A man is born and raised a Christian, accepts Christ as his Savior…lives a good Christian life for many years, lets say 50 years, then one day…something tragic happens in his life, something that is inexplicable, and he goes nuts and walks into a Burger King full of moms and dads and kids on a Sunday afternoon with an AK-47 and kills 40 or 50 innocent people. He is captured and examined by no less than five Psychatrists and certified fully sane…just angry. Understands right and wrong, is mentally competent, and has proven it.

So, according to “your theology”:

He’s still “saved”, he is “guaranteed” salvation??

Unless of course what all the blather and bluster about the “elect vs the non-elect” is really little more than a religious ponzi scheme with a built in cop out to account for failures by declaring someone as having “never been saved” anyway?

Hmmmmm???

Is this a real case or are you just making stuff up like the visions of Mary etc.?

 

[brkn1]

You’re copping out…badly, and doing badly at it…

Sorry sport…and your cheap attempt at an “ad hominem” is proof thereof… And your rapid bailout from the site is confirmation as well… Not so sure of your “beliefs” are you??? In fantasy land, anything can work…but in reality, uh-huh, nope.

You seem to be the one in fantasy land. You come across as a 10 year old troll.

 

[RobHom]

Is this a real case or are you just making stuff up like the visions of Mary etc.?

Still, is that the best that you can do to justify your “purported theologies”?

Now if you’d like to get down in the mud and get nasty, trust me “bucko”…I don’t have many compunctions to prevent me from going there…so you can rid yourself of snide references to Mary or anyone else, OK… or we can play whatever game you want, and maybe I’ll start in on Calvin… You get the point?

 

[RobHom]

You seem to be the one in fantasy land. You come across as a 10 year old troll.

No, its you that is the TROLL! You make absurd claims about this and that, you denigrate the beliefs of others and make claims that yours are correct, and other than blather nonsense in a half-baked quasi-theological mumbo jumbo, you are totally incapable of supporting your beliefs with a simple YES or NO.

You are perhaps more juvenile than you choose to accuse others of?

Running for the cesspool quickly when cornered?

Grow up, support your beliefs, or go away.

 

[RobHom]

Still waiting for the “simple answer” that seems to elude you constantly.

 

[brkn1]

Still, is that the best that you can do to justify your “purported theologies”?

Now if you’d like to get down in the mud and get nasty, trust me “bucko”…I don’t have many compunctions to prevent me from going there…so you can rid yourself of snide references to Mary or anyone else, OK… or we can play whatever game you want, and maybe I’ll start in on Calvin… You get the point?

You win. I can’t handle your brilliance and threats of more down and dirty lack of compunctions. You are the consummate Roman Catholic and you are a good example of the true face of your church. Bravo bucko! You won!

 

[RobHom]

You win. I can’t handle your brilliance and threats of more down and dirty lack of compunctions. You are the consummate Roman Catholic and you are a good example of the true face of your church. Bravo bucko! You won!

Now “bucko”… I won, shallow victory that it is, against someone who is standing on a very slippery slope, and who lacks the stones to answer a simple question that puts his “so-called theology” in highly questionable position. And someone who is probably far less of a Christian than they believe…because that person seems fully incapable of doing anything when challenged without running and diving into the cesspool of ad hominem attacks…

Right about now…you should be fathoming the “abject lack of sanity” in what you consider to be “sound theology”.

Remember what Christ said about the truth setting you free? GRASP THE TRUTH!!

 

[brkn1]

Rather than start another pointless thread trying to “split hairs” why don’t you answer the questions put to you…or is it a trifle to difficult to do so:

Like this one:

3d…A man is born and raised a Christian, accepts Christ as his Savior…lives a good Christian life for many years, lets say 50 years, then one day…something tragic happens in his life, something that is inexplicable, and he goes nuts and walks into a Burger King full of moms and dads and kids on a Sunday afternoon with an AK-47 and kills 40 or 50 innocent people. He is captured and examined by no less than five Psychatrists and certified fully sane…just angry. Understands right and wrong, is mentally competent, and has proven it.

So, according to “your theology”:

He’s still “saved”, he is “guaranteed” salvation??

Unless of course what all the blather and bluster about the “elect vs the non-elect” is really little more than a religious ponzi scheme with a built in cop out to account for failures by declaring someone as having “never been saved” anyway?

Hmmmmm???

No truly born again person would ever do what you propose here as a posibility.
I know that this answer will not satisfy you, but you are just using a nonsense argument anyway.

 

[brkn1]

The Catholic Encyclopedia defines the difference between the Protestant and Catholic qualities of justification in the following way:

Protestant: certainty, equality, the impossibility of ever losing it

Catholic: uncertainty, inequality, amissibility (you can lose it)

With this difference in mind, I would like to ask if a Catholic can ever have justification?
The understanding they give of justification as an uncertainty would preclude their claim of Baptism giving anyone even a moment of justification.
The reason I say this is because of (Romans 8:30) “Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called: and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified.”

The “…and whom He justified, them He also glorified.” messes up the RCC claim of any certainty about Baptism causing any justification.
If it does cause a person to become justified for even a moment, then that person HAS to eventually become glorified.

Catholics could never “split this hair”. Why don’t you split it RomHom?

 

[JonNC]

The Catholic Encyclopedia defines the difference between the Protestant and Catholic qualities of justification in the following way:

Protestant: certainty, equality, the impossibility of ever losing it

Catholic: uncertainty, inequality, amissibility (you can lose it)

I just couldn’t get past this. As a Lutheran, I do not recognise this definition of justification.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Rather than start another pointless thread trying to “split hairs” why don’t you answer the questions put to you…or is it a trifle to difficult to do so:

Like this one:

3d…A man is born and raised a Christian, accepts Christ as his Savior…lives a good Christian life for many years, lets say 50 years, then one day…something tragic happens in his life, something that is inexplicable, and he goes nuts and walks into a Burger King full of moms and dads and kids on a Sunday afternoon with an AK-47 and kills 40 or 50 innocent people. He is captured and examined by no less than five Psychatrists and certified fully sane…just angry. Understands right and wrong, is mentally competent, and has proven it.

So, according to “your theology”:

He’s still “saved”, he is “guaranteed” salvation??

Unless of course what all the blather and bluster about the “elect vs the non-elect” is really little more than a religious ponzi scheme with a built in cop out to account for failures by declaring someone as having “never been saved” anyway?

Hmmmmm???

Rob,
He is not saved! Unless with a fully contrite heart, he confesses his sin, has full intention to “go and sin no more”, and receives Holy Absolution.

I don’t bother with the elect v. non-elect either.

Hope you are well, my friend.
Jon

 

[SSTeacher]

A man is born and raised a Christian, accepts Christ as his Savior…lives a good Christian life for many years, lets say 50 years, then one day…something tragic happens in his life, something that is inexplicable, and he goes nuts and walks into a Burger King full of moms and dads and kids on a Sunday afternoon with an AK-47 and kills 40 or 50 innocent people. He is captured and examined by no less than five Psychatrists and certified fully sane…just angry. Understands right and wrong, is mentally competent, and has proven it.

So, according to “your theology”:

He’s still “saved”, he is “guaranteed” salvation??

No truly born again person would ever do what you propose here as a posibility.

I’m not so sure. A person who is saved according to this understanding of salvation still commits sins. Judas was one of the elect (insofar as he was personally chosen by the Lord) and he committed a very great sin.

Surely the answer to Rob’s question is that the murder of 40 or 50 innocent people by a person who was saved would not affect the saved person’s salvation?

Helpfully,
Mick

 

[LutheranDK]

The Catholic Encyclopedia defines the difference between the Protestant and Catholic qualities of justification in the following way:

Protestant: certainty, equality, the impossibility of ever losing it

Wrong. It should be:
“Calvinist: The impossibility of ever losing it”.

What you’re talking about here is OSAS, to which nowhere NEAR all “protestants” subscribe.

 

[RobHom]

No truly born again person would ever do what you propose here as a posibility.

I see that you are now adopting the position of “omniscience” with regards to mankind as a whole.

I’m sorry, but you are wrong, because there is absolutely no way that you can make that statement with more than a 50% chance of being correct.

Surely you have heard the phrase “Never say never”?

I know that this answer will not satisfy you, but you are just using a nonsense argument anyway.

On that you are right…at least the part about it being a “satisfactory answer” because it was as bad as it could be. Me using a nonsense argument… Hardly…but it was in fact a very pointed argument that has put you and your beliefs on the spot…because you can’t answer the question and support it other than to say…No really saved person would ever do that… There you have merely expresses an opinion…one that carries little weight in fact.

Care to “try again”.

 

[RobHom]

I’m not so sure. A person who is saved according to this understanding of salvation still commits sins. Judas was one of the elect (insofar as he was personally chosen by the Lord) and he committed a very great sin.

True, and while a variety of arguments can be made as to whether or not Judas is in Hades or not fill volumes…though I would bet a poll would reflect a landslide result of “Yes he is”.

Surely the answer to Rob’s question is that the murder of 40 or 50 innocent people by a person who was saved would not affect the saved person’s salvation?

Helpfully,
Mick

That is the crux of the question under the parameters outlined.
Thank You.

 

[RobHom]

Wrong. It should be:
“Calvinist: The impossibility of ever losing it”.

Precisely. And frankly…its a “specious” theology at best.

What you’re talking about here is OSAS, to which nowhere NEAR all “protestants” subscribe.

Again, precisely. OSAS is without a question one of the farthest left theologies on the planet.

Yet…the question has still not been answered definitively by brkn1 with even a simple Yes or No.