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… 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.
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. 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.
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
3. penal substitution
Not a scriptural term. Explanation please!
4. adoption through propitiation
Likewise. Tell us how you understand that, what you think it means, and how you think Catholics reject it.
leaving Catholics with a tendency to have fear and uncertainty of their eternal destination.
So you think you can be sure of your salvation, and that once saved always saved? But then how do you explain scriptures that suggest otherwise. Here is one:
Luke 12:
47 And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
The “servant” was an obvious believer. He was a
servant of the master. He
knew his master’s will, but “prepared not himself”. His failure was not in unbelief, but in
action. Here is another:
James 1:
22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
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?
