The Qualities of Justification

[SSTeacher]

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.

Hi LutheranDK,

Thanks for pointing that out. But perhaps the main question focuses on the difference between the post–Reformation view of salvation (which sees salvation as an event that happens sometime during one’s earthly life) and the pre–Reformation teaching about salvation (through which it is understood that salvation is a process that takes place over a lifetime).

If you don’t mind my asking, how do you understand salvation?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[RobHom]

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

There is no need to “split hairs”. You presume or assume a great deal. I’ve not tried to split a hair, that one or any other one, as there is no hair to split. It is your lack of understanding the issue, or denial of any understanding. Your attempt at justifying your theology as superior to anything by the use of 25 words out of an entire chapter is humorous at best…along with ignoring the balance of Romans 8. You’re out of context, and far afield in your presumptions. You cannot use snippets of scripture to justify anything…

**Catholics understand and know that OSAS is HERESY. **

A Calvinist splits the hair, not a Catholic. Don’t bother attempting to use reverse psychology…it won’t work.

Would you like another scenario that will put you behind the 8 ball again?

 

[RobHom]

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.

Precisely, THANK YOU!

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

Neither do we.

Hope you are well, my friend.
Jon

Jon, thank you, yes all is well, and I hope the same for you all!!
Rob

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

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?

 

[emarc]

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

Jesus himself answered it already. In Matt 26:24 he said; “the Son of Man indeed goes, as it is written of him, but WOE to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It would be BETTER for that man if HE HAD NOT BEEN BORN.” only in hell could one wished he was not born.
God bless.

 

[emarc]

Hi LutheranDK,

Thanks for pointing that out. But perhaps the main question focuses on the difference between the post–Reformation view of salvation (which sees salvation as an event that happens sometime during one’s earthly life) and the pre–Reformation teaching about salvation (through which it is understood that salvation is a process that takes place over a lifetime).

If you don’t mind my asking, how do you understand salvation?

Curiously,
Mick

sorry, i know you asked lutherandk, but here’s how Catholic defines salvation - the forgiveness of sins and restoration of friendship with God, which can be done by Him alone (CCC169) .
God bless.

 

[nbtb1348]

 

[brkn1]

The understanding Catholics 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.

Why has nobody answered this question yet? It must be easy, since RobHom has me pegged as simple-minded, but he still can’t answer it.
If Baptism justifies, that person must also end up glorified. Maybe your baptism does not justify.

 

[SSTeacher]

sorry, i know you asked lutherandk, but here’s how Catholic defines salvation - the forgiveness of sins and restoration of friendship with God, which can be done by Him alone (CCC169) .
God bless.

Hi emarc,

Thanks for your help.

Gratefully,
Mick

 

[LutheranDK]

Hi LutheranDK,

Thanks for pointing that out. But perhaps the main question focuses on the difference between the post–Reformation view of salvation (which sees salvation as an event that happens sometime during one’s earthly life) and the pre–Reformation teaching about salvation (through which it is understood that salvation is a process that takes place over a lifetime).

If you don’t mind my asking, how do you understand salvation?

Curiously,
Mick

I don’t mind at all

I distinguish between Justification and Sanctification.
Justification is what is called “being saved”. That is an event - which takes place when you/one becomes a Christian, and solely by this faith (Sola Fide).

Sanctification is a process - the process of growing in imitation of Christ, and in holiness in living for Him. Sanctification is the consequence of Justification, and without Sanctification, there has been no Justification.

Luther was unjustly accused of saying that Christians should no longer do good works. That is not true. The question is WHY we should do good works - in order to BE saved, or because we ARE saved. I believe the latter, as it is what I believe Scripture teaches.

 

[SSTeacher]

Why has nobody answered this question yet?

Hi brkn1,

The Catholics here have answered it, haven’t they? They’ve told us that there is no guarantee of salvation in Catholicism, which as far as I can see means that Catholics do not understand salvation and/or justification in the same sense as we Protestants do.

If the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church had folded up following the Reformation, the Protestant case would be overwhelming. But that hasn’t happened. Both Churches are still very much alive and teaching the same thing about salvation that they’ve always taught. Are you ever prompted to pause and reflect upon the fact that the Catholic teaching about salvation is more or less the same as Eastern Orthodox teaching, which means that Christians in both the East and the West understood salvation in the same way for some 1500 years until the Protestant Reformation? When one considers the degree of holiness and commitment to the Christian life many pre–Reformation believers achieved the Protestant case seems to weaken even further, don’t you think?

Thoughtfully,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

I don’t mind at all

I distinguish between Justification and Sanctification.
Justification is what is called “being saved”. That is an event - which takes place when you/one becomes a Christian, and solely by this faith (Sola Fide).

Sanctification is a process - the process of growing in imitation of Christ, and in holiness in living for Him. Sanctification is the consequence of Justification, and without Sanctification, there has been no Justification.

Luther was unjustly accused of saying that Christians should no longer do good works. That is not true. The question is WHY we should do good works - in order to BE saved, or because we ARE saved. I believe the latter, as it is what I believe Scripture teaches.

Thanks. I’ll think about that for a while.

Grace and peace,
Mick

 

[LutheranDK]

Thanks. I’ll think about that for a while.

Grace and peace,
Mick

Take your time. I’d like your thoughts on it

 

[brkn1]

Hi brkn1,

The Catholics here have answered it, haven’t they? They’ve told us that there is no guarantee of salvation in Catholicism, which as far as I can see means that Catholics do not understand salvation and/or justification in the same sense as we Protestants do.

Thoughtfully,
Mick

Yes, They tried to answer it by speaking around it.

I have to assume that the RCC Baptism does not in any way justify a person, since (Romans 8:30) says that glorification is the eventual result of that justification.
Justification resulting in glorification fits OSAS, but it does not fit their “process method” of justification.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

nrtb

Dear friend, you are caught in the Galatian error. Paul hated it more than any sin! We share the truth over and over but you just don’t hear it

Someone is not listening. I agree!

Galatians 5

13You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Galatians 6

7Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature[a]will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.** 9Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. **

 

[SSTeacher]

Yes, They tried to answer it by speaking around it.

I have to assume that the RCC Baptism does not in any way justify a person, since (Romans 8:30) says that glorification is the eventual result of that justification.
Justification resulting in glorification fits OSAS, but it does not fit their “process method” of justification.

Fair comment. But if it is a “process method,” would that necessarily make it unbiblical? Doesn’t justification within the Protestant setting come via a process method, too?

Consider the following.

An American Evangelical Protestant invites to church a work colleague whose worldview hovers somewhere between agnosticism and deism and is extremely surprised when the invitation is accepted. At the conclusion of the worship service the pastor announces to the congregation that anybody who does not know Jesus as his or her Lord and Savior should come forward. Surprisingly, the agnostic comes forward. The pastor subsequently invites the agnostic to come and talk about the Christian life and during the conversation inquires as to why the agnostic responded to the invitation to come forward. The agnostic looks nonplussed, announces that it’s the last thing imaginable, and then declares that it must be God at work because there is no other feasible explanation. The pastor nods in agreement.

Question: Bearing in mind that the agnostic is completely clueless as to even the basics of Christian doctrine at what point (if any) during the above sequence would you say that the agnostic was justified and how do you get to your conclusion?

Cordially,
Mick

 

[nbtb1348]

Someone is not listening. I agree!

Galatians 5

13You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Galatians 6

7Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature[a]will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.** 9Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. **

Come on, Chesty! We’re not denying any of those Scriptures!

We believe that FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD FAITH! How many times do we have to say it? True saving faith works, and it works wonderfully and in increasing measure.

Second, we say that a man is justified by faith apart from any works of the law, because those are the very words of Scripture!

And Paul says, (do you think we make this stuff up?) "8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. "
But then he goes on to say, “10For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”

BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT SAVES US! Conversion, cross-appropriating faith saved us. And yes, we were gloriously saved, though sometimes we fall. God knew we would.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Come on, Chesty! We’re not denying any of those Scriptures!

We believe that FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD FAITH! How many times do we have to say it? True saving faith works, and it works wonderfully and in increasing measure.

Second, we say that a man is justified by faith apart from any works of the law, because those are the very words of Scripture!

And Paul says, (do you think we make this stuff up?) "8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. "
But then he goes on to say, “10For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”

BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT SAVES US! Conversion, cross-appropriating faith saved us. And yes, we were gloriously saved, though sometimes we fall. God knew we would.

God wants all men to be saved. I don’t believe all men are saved.

If you agree with me on this point, then you also should agree that we must cooperate with God’s grace.

We can’t do this without faith or without obeying the teachings of Jesus.

 

[nbtb1348]

Fair comment. But if it is a “process method,” would that necessarily make it unbiblical? Doesn’t justification within the Protestant setting come via a process method, too?

Consider the following.

An American Evangelical Protestant invites to church a work colleague whose worldview hovers somewhere between agnosticism and deism and is extremely surprised when the invitation is accepted. At the conclusion of the worship service the pastor announces to the congregation that anybody who does not know Jesus as his or her Lord and Savior should come forward. Surprisingly, the agnostic comes forward. The pastor subsequently invites the agnostic to come and talk about the Christian life and during the conversation inquires as to why the agnostic responded to the invitation to come forward. The agnostic looks nonplussed, announces that it’s the last thing imaginable, and then declares that it must be God at work because there is no other feasible explanation. The pastor nods in agreement.

Question: Bearing in mind that the agnostic is completely clueless as to even the basics of Christian doctrine at what point (if any) during the above sequence would you say that the agnostic was justified and how do you get to your conclusion?

Cordially,
Mick

Coming forward to talk about the Christian life doesn’t imply justification. It might well imply that God is drawing him to Himself. If that person repents of his sins and wrong thinking about Christ and clings to Him in faith for salvation, about 30 things happen in a New York minute!

 

[nbtb1348]

God wants all men to be saved. I don’t believe all men are saved.

If you agree with me, then you also must agree that we must cooperate with God’s grace.

We can’t do this without faith or without obeying the teachings of Jesus.

I agree with you. God desires all men to be saved. I also don’t believe all men are saved. Jesus said ‘few’ are, and the ‘many’ are not. Once God’s grace acts upon us fully, we exercise faith, and then works that actually please God will follow. If they don’t follow, that person’s faith was dead–never real and alive. But the faith is what brought the power and desire to produce good works.