The sufficiency of Christ

[PRmerger]

Please post the actual Scriptures, and don’t just generalize. You also need to address the question in regards to your confidence and assurance that you are truly part of the bride of Christ which is bringing this back to the thread topic of the sufficiency of Christ for your adopition and/or your place as the eternal bride of Christ.

I’m not going to post the entire Song of Songs, Adam. :whacky:

If you really are unfamiliar with the imagery of the Love and His Beloved, then I doubt you are familiar with Scripture at all.

You can promote your view of us as adopted children of Christ–and you are making a very Catholic statement when you do that–but the more striking and attractive analogy for any Christian is the analogy of husband and wife. And, the SUBLIME One Flesh Union.
And only those who participate in the Eucharist can have that!

 

[izoid]

If you claim that is what Scripture teaches, then maybe you should post your Scripture proofs to support your claim? I clearly believe that Scripture supports the historic confessional Protestatnt position of justification. I believe a Catholic view of justification cannot be supported by Scripture alone, but rather the Catholic view of justification requires Sacred Tradition.

Your trouble focusing amazes me. The post you are quoting was not regarding justification but rather Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist. For proof of that you can read John chapter 6.

 

[izoid]

Okay, you are discussing this with a Protestant sibling who adheres to sola scriptura. Please post Scripture proofs to support your view and I will follow up with my position that God’s love is measured through the doctrines of propitiation and adoption. To link this to the thread topic, how do you even know you will even be part of the bride of Christ?

Please post scripture proofs for your doctrine of sola scriptura, otherwise it is an invalid doctrine and not worthy to be discussed.

 

[mark_a]

The sufficiency of Christ

I believe the essential difference between Protestants and Catholics is the work of Christ for sinners. It really has to do with the sufficiency of Christ. A Catholic brother posted on another thread that Christ is all sufficient. However, I believe the Protestant position is really about the sufficiency of Christ, and the Catholic view of the work of Christ is not the same. The Catholic position has a lower view of the work of Christ than Protestants in the disucssion of sufficiency.

Say what??

Describing Christ and his work as “sufficient” seems like an insult to him.

How would you like it if 2nd Eve said your paycheck was “sufficient”?

 

[PRmerger]

So, why is Guan’s view and interpretation of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition more correct than the next Catholic with an opposing interpretation of the Catholic Catechism?

What opposing interpretations of the Catholic Catechism have been presented here? Please cite the viewpoint by one Catholic (it must include a Catechism reference that’s been “interpreted”), and the opposing viewpoint by Guanophore.

It seems to me that he speaks with Magestrium authority which seems to be reserved for the Bishop of Rome and other bishops in communion with him.

That’s just plain :whacky:

What’s being presented here is the truth, as proclaimed by Christ and the apostles, guarded and interpreted by the Magisterium. To the degree that guanophore’s statements affirm and correlate with the teachings of the Apostles, is the degree that guanophore is proclaiming the truth.

If I say “a square has 4 sides” I present it with the authority of the truth, but I make no claim that I am speaking for Euclid by doing so.

**The Truth is “owned” by whoever proclaims it truthfully! **

 

[benidict]

The trouble is, In Catholicism God does not “save sinners” through the Calvinist gospel either!

hi z. ive tried to tell him that too. peace be unto you.

 

[benidict]

I believe that the must sublime gift of God to us is not that he makes us his children through adoption, but that God desires to marry us. Yup. Marry us.

Through the CC we know that God has given us his flesh and through this One Flesh Union of the Eucharist, mirrored in the marital embrace between husband and wife; we are so closely united to Him as only husband and wife can be. Not merely “adopted” children…but ONE FLESH with the Eternal Godhead.

How. Awesome. Is. THAT???

i think you hit the nail on the head, on this one pr. God bless you and yours.

 

[guanophore]

The Scriptures is sufficient to point to the One who is sufficient for us. There’s a big difference to discern in this conversation. Christ is suffiicent for us. Scripture reveals this truth to us.

This is well said, 2nd, and very Catholic. You have stated, in a nutshell, the difference between material and formal sufficiency.

 

[guanophore]

Catholics have a lower view of the sufficiency of Christ because they reject a forensic justification, the doctrine of imputation, penal substitution, and adoption through propitiation…

I am glad you have finally answered this question, 2nd. This will make it more clear where you do not understand Catholic Teaching. You see, everything in Bible is Catholic, and that is why you find these references (some of them) in scripture.

Contrary to what you have been taught, Catholics do believe in foresnsic justification adn imputation. These are only the beginning, though, and the Apostles taught that these elements are only part of the story.

Penal substitution is a heresy, which is why it is rejected. Adoption is a teaching of the Apostles. So, I think your premise is wrong. Catholics do not have a “lower view”, or if they do, it is not for the reasons you have given here.

leaving Catholics with a tendency to have fear and uncertainty of their eternal destination. Christ is sufficient for those who understand the truth of adoption through propitiation.

Catholics that have a tendency toward fear and uncertaintly do so because they have been inadequately catechized; Usually, spiritual formation is lacking,a nd they don’t have an adequate understanding of grace, and what happens in baptism.

which hope of theirs shall perish: yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, may in this life be certainly assured that they are in a state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed.

This is quite Catholic!

but an infallible assurance of faith, founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God: which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.

Indeed.

 

[guanophore]

However, IMO… many Catholics appear to miss it. I think the same thing can be said about modern day Protestants too, who try to walk the Christian life from their own strength and own resources.

I think this is very well said.

Why we get hung up on free will seems to be caused by our different views of the new birth and regeneration.

Yes, I agree. As well as the effects of the Fall. In fact, I think teh different views are well contained in the TULIP, each leaf departing to some extent from the teachings of the Apostles.

 

[2nd_Adam]

More!

31
“For this reason a man shall leave (his) father and (his) mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”
32
This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church.
33
In any case, each one of you should love his wife as himself, and the wife should respect her husband. Eph 5:31-32

St. Paul uses the analogy of spousal love, referring back to Genesis:: ‘A man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh’ (Gen 2:24). This is the ‘great mystery’ of eternal love present in God’s creation.

As Pope JPII says: The ‘great mystery’, which is the Church and humanity in Christ, does not exist apart from the ‘great mystery’ expressed in the ‘one flesh’ (cf. Gen 2:24; Eph 5:31-32), that is, in the reality of marriage and the family."

Being the bride of Christ is amazing. However, I posted that the yardstick of the love of God is revealed in the doctrine of propitiation and adoption. Your verses does not even mention the love of God. I will give you Scriptures to show you what I mean.

 

[2nd_Adam]

This is quite Catholic!

I will change this and say “This is quite Christian”!

Our identity is in Christ! Our live is not hidden in the Catholic Church. We are not told to put on the Catholic Church. Don’t glorify the church in whom Christ purchased. Glorify Christ!

If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory. - Apostle Paul

 

[guanophore]

5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

How did Noah find favor in the eyes of the Lord? If ALL mankind was evil continually?

Jeremiah 17:9

The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick;
who can understand it?

This is a description of the effects of original sin on the heart. However, even in it’s fallen state, the heart of man is made for God, and seeks after Him to find Him. Our hearts are restless until they rest in Him.

No One Is Righteous

9 What then? Are we Jews [1] any better off? [2] No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written:

“None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 in their paths are ruin and misery,
17 and the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

I think if you are willing to be honest in looking at the source of this passage, you will see from where the quote is taken that there ARE righteous people, described in the passage that follows this one. Paul is comparing unbelieving Jews and unbelieving Gentiles. He is not claiming that people do not wish to find God when they are in a fallen state.

 

[zerinus]

I agree with this, as I agree that the Mormon Jesus is not the Jesus that was known and preached by the Apostles.

Oh, I must have missed that! That was foolish of me to miss that. I entirely disagree. The Jesus of Mormonism is none other than the Jesus prophesied of in the Old Testament, fulfilled in the New Testament, and preached by the Apostles.—And the same Jesus who will be coming again to judge the living and the dead according to their works!

 

[guanophore]

Here for the first time you have made a shy and tentative attempt to answer the central question that people have been asking you from the start of this thread. You could have done that from the beginning, and the ensuing discussion would have been a much more constructive one.

This is a true statement, and we are in agreement. I am amazed that we are up to several hundred posts of dancing around it.

 Okay, these are terms that require explanation and clarification, if you expect Catholics to engage you in a meaningful discussion about them:

1. forensic justification
   You have to explain what that means, and why do you think that Catholics do not accept it and Protestants do. What is “forensic justification”? Justification is a scriptural term, but forensic isn’t. You need to explain what you mean by that, and what is the scriptural justification for believing it.

I would like to hear this too. Forensic is a term describing what is of or related to the legal system. These references are found in scripture, whereever Paul talks about the requirements of the law being set aside by His sacrifice. I think what it means is that we are “legally” justified. In Calvanistic thought,this concept seems to be related to assuaging the “wrath” of God that is His justice against sin, and sinners.

Catholics do believe in “forensic” justification, but for us this is only a very small part of what it means to be justified. We are removed from under the Law, and it’s penalties, and are now under grace. The consequences due to us for sin (legally) Jesus bore in Himself on the cross.

Paul also refers to this as a “declaration”, and he is using language common in the court of law at the time. He means that we were acquitted of the crime (sins we committed).

2. the doctrine of imputation
Again you need to explain. The word “impute” (and its derivatives) occurs 15 times in the KJV Bible, both in the Old as well as in the New Testaments. I can’t believe that the Catholics don’t accept the plain meaning of the word as it occurs in the context of the scriptures in which it occurs. So if there are disagreements, I presume it must center on how they are verses are interpreted. So you need to explain what you think that means, and how the Catholics reject it, and why you think they shouldn’t

I would appreciate this too. You are correct, Catholics do believe in imputed righteousness. If we did not , it would not be found in the NT, since everything in the NT is Catholic.

Again, it is only the tip of the iceberg, though. He not only declares us righteous by the righeteousness of Christ, but also INFUSES into us His righteousness. The concept is emphasized in Reformed theology to separate the imputed from the infused righteousness. Refomed Christians believe in infused righteousness also, but they wish to separate justification from sanctification, and this is essential for that distinction.

**3. penal substitution**

Not a scriptural term. Explanation please!

Not an Apostolic Teaching either.

4. adoption through propitiation
Likewise. Tell us how you understand that, what you think it means, and how you think Catholics reject it.

It is a flawed concept to the extent that the Apostles taught that Christ was the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Calvanists say He propitiated only the sins of the Elect. Since the Apostles taught that He died for the sins of the whole world, but that some reject the purpose of God for themselves, then we are not adopted by the propitiation by itself. Something else needs to happen for HIs sacrifice to be applied to us.

He is addressing this to believers, to members of the Church. He is telling them that just being “believers” isn’t good enough. They have to do something about it. Action is required, not just profession of belief. So how do you explain these then?

They say that God is “disciplining” his own. Since they believe they cannot be cut off from the vine, any such scriptures are construed to mean that God is doing whatever necessary to get the believer to grow closer to Him.

 

[guanophore]

That happens when you give your monitor an incorrect screen resolution. If you right-click on the desktop on your computer, a menu comes up that allows you to change the screen resolution to what it should be.

 

[zerinus]

Forensic is a term describing what is of or related to the legal system. These references are found in scripture, whereever Paul talks about the requirements of the law being set aside by His sacrifice. I think what it means is that we are “legally” justified. In Calvanistic thought,this concept seems to be related to assuaging the “wrath” of God that is His justice against sin, and sinners.

So is there something called non-forensic justification as well? And what is the difference between the two? I thought “justification” itself was a legalistic term, or has legal connotations. So what is the difference between forensic justification and non-forensic justification?

 

[guanophore]

Hey Izoid, you’re back in my doghouse due to such apparent personal attack. We should discuss doctrine instead of making judgment of character and of the heart of another. I might consider discussing things with you in about a month. In the mean time, here’s a good verse to mediate on while being in my doghouse.

The hubris is getting really thick in here!

 

[2nd_Adam]

Say what??

Describing Christ and his work as “sufficient” seems like an insult to him.

How would you like it if 2nd Eve said your paycheck was “sufficient”?

I would strongly disagree with your conclusion. We are justified by faith in what God has done for us in Christ (see Pope’s link). Therefore, to be able to have faith and complete trust in what Christ has accomplished for us in Christ to be justified, we are to believe in the gospel of God about His Son with all of our heart, soul, strength and mind. So, the sufficiency of Jesus Christ is all about Christ and Him crucified for wretched sinners like me and you to bring us to God, reconcile us to Him, and is the basis for our adoption in which we are able to call upon God as our Heavenly Father (Abba Father). We know it is impossible to please God without faith. To have a faith that please God is believing what He has done for us in Christ.

1 Corinthians 2:2
For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

As a Catholic Christian, on what basis are you able to call on God as your Heavenly Father? On what basis are you a child of God?

Here is a Catholic source to help you understand justification by faith which is about the sufficiency of Jesus Christ for me and you.

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0027.html

 

[2nd_Adam]

What opposing interpretations of the Catholic Catechism have been presented here? Please cite the viewpoint by one Catholic (it must include a Catechism reference that’s been “interpreted”), and the opposing viewpoint by Guanophore.

That’s just plain :whacky:

What’s being presented here is the truth, as proclaimed by Christ and the apostles, guarded and interpreted by the Magisterium. To the degree that guanophore’s statements affirm and correlate with the teachings of the Apostles, is the degree that guanophore is proclaiming the truth.

If I say “a square has 4 sides” I present it with the authority of the truth, but I make no claim that I am speaking for Euclid by doing so.

**The Truth is “owned” by whoever proclaims it truthfully! **

I’ve been on Catholic Answers for several months. We all know that there are multiple interpretations and understanding on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition including the Catholic Catechism. In addition, there are only very few Scripture verses that are officially interpreted for you by the Magestrium for you. I enjoy my time with Guan as I consider him a dear Catholic Christian brother with much zeal. However, he seems to go way beyond his laity authority and appears to speaks as He is the Magestrium himself. Of course that’s my view and opinion. He does have an apparent apologetics tactic that is quite easy for anyone to see through the smoke screen. Anytime he disagrees with someone, he simply states that it is not what the Apostles believed and taught…LOL. I find it quite funny and entertaining. I know certain Catholic materials will have that Vatican stamp of approval and many Catholic sources do not have the Vatican stamp of approval. Guan’s view does not always represent a correct orthodox Catholic understanding, but at least he tries. I think it is very difficult to be a Catholic Christian… trying to find out what is actually what you are suppose to believe as a Catholic Chrisitan on various subjects. I see mass confusion on ecumencism and non-Christian Faiths with Catholics.