The sufficiency of Christ

[guanophore]

Declared Righteous: What Actually Changes?

Welcome to the thread, Forgiven. You are required to cite your sources here.

My plagarism software says this article came from here.. is that right? If you were in my class, you would be getting an F.

The OP will probably be very happy with your post. I think he is a fan of John MacArthur.

 

[guanophore]

The Joint Declaration is between a branch of Lutherans and the Catholic Church. I think you know that I am not Lutheran. In addition, the Joint Declaration does not represent all Lutheran branches. From the historic Protestant perspective, the cause of the Protestant Reformation is the heart of the gospel also known as the doctrine of justification. It was not just a communication problem 500 years ago, nor is it just a communication problem today.

OIC! We are back to the TULIP again! Ok. You are right, much of what is contained in TULIP is contrary to what the Apostles believed and taught.

 

[guanophore]

If you take what the Apostles believed according to Sacred Scripture, your posting would not stand up to the light of Scirpture. What must I do to be saved was asked by the Philippian jailer. The Apostles’ answer to that most important question is recorded in Sacred Scripture - church history book known as the Acts of the Apostles,

Yes, and what did the jailer DO!

Separating his initiation into the new covenant is just as bad as separating Eph. 2:8-9 from v. 10. It is inappropriate and unnecessary, unless one is trying to exclude part of scripture in order to accomodate their theology.

 

[fhansen]

This has always been the historic Protestant position.

“There is no justification without sanctification, no forgiveness without renewal of life, no real faith from which the fruits of new obedience do not grow.”

Martin Luther

I didn’t know Protestants believed we must be sanctified in order to be saved.

 

[benidict]

I didn’t know Protestants believed we must be sanctified in order to be saved.

welcome to the thread fhansen. have you ever heard of the church of the nazarine? they believe in a two fold sanctification. dont know if i worded that right. hopefully we can draw one to answere that for us. Love in Christ.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

I think he is a fan of John MacArthur.

Oh noes! Didn’t this guy write The Gospel according to Rome?

 

[benidict]

I didn’t know Protestants believed we must be sanctified in order to be saved.

hi fhansen, our arminian friends do. also may want to check out the church of the nazarene. they believe in a second work of sanctification if im not mistaken.Love in Christ.

 

[izoid]

God does not justify whom He does not sanctify, and He does not sanctify whom He does not justify. Both are essential elements of salvation.

Can you provide us with the Scripture references that validate this opinion?

 

[izoid]

Christians are justified by faith alone, their standing before God is not in any way related to personal merit. Good works and practical holiness do not provide the grounds for acceptance with God. God receives as righteous those who believe, not because of any good thing He sees in them–not even because of His own sanctifying work in their lives–but solely on the basis of Christ’s righteousness, which is reckoned to their account. “To the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness” (Romans 4:5). That is justification.

Declared Righteous: What Actually Changes?

In its theological sense, justification is a forensic, or purely legal, term. It describes what God declares about the believer, not what He does to change the believer. In fact, justification effects no actual change whatsoever in the sinner’s nature or character. Justification is a divine judicial edict. It changes our status only, but it carries ramifications that guarantee other changes will follow. Forensic decrees like this are fairly common in everyday life.

When I was married, for example, my wife and I stood before the minister and recited our vows. Near the end of the ceremony, the minister declared, “By the authority vested in me by the state of Illinois, I pronounce you man and wife.” Instantly we were legally husband and wife. Whereas seconds before we had been an engaged couple, now we were married. Nothing inside us actually changed when those words were spoken. But our status changed before God, the law, and our family and friends. The implications of that simple declaration have been lifelong and life-changing. But when the minister spoke those words, it was a legal declaration only.

Similarly, when a jury foreman reads the verdict, the defendant is no longer “the accused.” Legally and officially he instantly becomes either guilty or innocent–depending on the verdict. Nothing in his actual nature changes, but if he is found not guilty he will walk out of court a free person in the eyes of the law, fully justified.

In biblical terms, justification is a divine verdict of “not guilty–fully righteous.” It is the reversal of God’s attitude toward the sinner. Whereas He formerly condemned, He now vindicates. Although the sinner once lived under God’s wrath, as a believer he or she is now under God’s blessing.

Justification is more than simple pardon; pardon alone would still leave the sinner without merit before God. So when God justifies He imputes divine righteousness to the sinner (Romans 4:22-25). Christ’s own infinite merit thus becomes the ground on which the believer stands before God (Romans 5:19; 1 Corinthians 1:30; Philippians 3:9). So justification elevates the believer to a realm of full acceptance and divine privilege in Jesus Christ.

Therefore, because of justification, believers not only are perfectly free from any charge of guilt (Romans 8:33) but also have the full merit of Christ reckoned to their personal account (Romans 5:17). Here are the forensic realities that flow out of justification:

• We are adopted as sons and daughters (Romans 8:15)
• We become fellow-heirs with Christ (v. 17)
• We are united with Christ so that we become one with Him (1 Corinthians 6:17)
• We are henceforth “in Christ” (Galatians 3:27) and He in us (Colossians 1:27)

How Justification and Sanctification Differ

Justification is distinct from sanctification because in justification God does not make the sinner righteous; He declares that person righteous (Romans 3:28; Galatians 2:16).

Notice how justification and sanctification are distinct from one another:

• Justification imputes Christ’s righteousness to the sinner’s account (Romans 4:11b) Sanctification imparts righteousness to the sinner personally and practically (Romans 6:1-7; 8:11-14).
• Justification takes place outside sinners and changes their standing (Romans 5:1-2), Sanctification is internal and changes the believer’s state (Romans 6:19).
• Justification is an event, Sanctification a process.

Those two must be distinguished but can never be separated. God does not justify whom He does not sanctify, and He does not sanctify whom He does not justify. Both are essential elements of salvation.

If it simply a judicial decree why then do we often see the new convert implored to “go and sin no more” or “to be righteous as I am righteous”? If there has not been an internal change that charge would be impossible. Jesus and the Paul would be calling us to life a life that is impossible.

 

[izoid]

No… justification is based on the righteousness of Christ alone. We have peace with God, and have been reconciled to God because we are credited with the perfect righteousness of Christ through faith alone.

Sanctification is the process of God making us like Christ. This is the transformation process in which the Spirit of God is working in us to change us.

Why is it then that when we read accounts of Judgement in the scriptures that we are judged by what we have done and not what we believe? It is very important that we take a balanced approach to our exegesis. Our doctrines must come from the whole of Scripture, not just part of it. Please do not take this as a belief in salvation BY works, it is not. I posted an article from the Council of Trent earlier in the thread that sums up justification quite succinctly.

 

[izoid]

You guys are more than welcome to discuss things with Izoid and Zee. Many Religious Forum sites have ignore features in which we can ignore certain posters. I think you can understand why we need the ability to ignore certain people. We are all sinners in process as Christians. So, please feel free to discuss things with Izoid and Zee. But for me, I need to move on with others who can discuss things in a better productive way for all of us. I’m not here to fight with others, but I’m here to be part of a community who is growing in our love for God.

He won’t discuss with me because I know his tactics, again, I spent years teaching them to Protestants. I understand his motives and desires and I ask questions that get to the heart of those motives. It is sad that he cannot and will not be completely forthright in answering our tough questions to him. My last set of questions were legimate inquries into his understanding of adoption through propitiation but he refused to answer them.

 

[crazzeto]

Why is it then that when we read accounts of Judgement in the scriptures that we are judged by what we have done and not what we believe? It is very important that we take a balanced approach to our exegesis. Our doctrines must come from the whole of Scripture, not just part of it. Please do not take this as a belief in salvation BY works, it is not. I posted an article from the Council of Trent earlier in the thread that sums up justification quite succinctly.

Today’s OT reading might shed some light on the above question:

drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=32&ch=1&l=1&f=s#x

1 In the third year of the reign of Joakim king of Juda, Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon came to Jerusalem, and besieged it. 2 And the Lord delivered into his hands Joakim the king of Juda, and part of the vessels of the house of God: and he carried them away into the land of Sennaar, to the house of his god, and the vessels he brought into the treasure house of his god. 3 And the king spoke to Asphenez the master of the eunuchs, that he should bring in some of the children of Israel, and of the king’s seed and of the princes, 4 Children in whom there was no blemish, well favoured, and skillful in all wisdom, acute in knowledge, and instructed in science, and such as might stand in the king’s palace, that he might teach them the learning, and the tongue of the Chaldeans. 5 And the king appointed them a daily provision, of his own meat, and of the wine of which he drank himself, that being nourished three years, afterwards they might stand before the king.

6 Now there were among them of the children of Juda, Daniel, Ananias, Misael, and Azarias. 7 And the master of the eunuchs gave them names: to Daniel, Baltassar: to Ananias, Sidrach: to Misael, Misach: and to Azarias, Abdenago. 8 But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not be defiled with the king’s table, nor with the wine which he drank: and he requested the master of the eunuchs that he might not be defiled. 9 And God gave to Daniel grace and mercy in the sight of the prince of the eunuchs. 10 And the prince of the eunuchs said to Daniel: I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed you meat and drink: who if he should see your faces leaner than those of the other youths your equals, you shall endanger my head to the king.

11 And Daniel said to Malasar, whom the prince of the eunuchs had appointed over Daniel, Ananias, Misael, and Azarias: 12 Try, I beseech thee, thy servants for ten days, and let pulse be given us to eat, and water to drink: 13 And look upon our faces, and the faces of the children that eat of the king’s meat: and as thou shalt see, deal with thy servants. 14 And when he had heard these words, he tried them for ten days. 15 And after ten days their faces appeared fairer and fatter than all the children that ate of the king’s meat.

16 So Malasar took their portions, and the wine that they should drink: and he gave them pulse. 17 And to these children God gave knowledge, and understanding in every book, and wisdom: but to Daniel the understanding also of all visions and dreams. 18 And when the days were ended, after which the king had ordered they should be brought in: the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nabuchodonosor. 19 And when the king had spoken to them, there were not found among them all such as Daniel, Ananias, Misael, and Azarias: and they stood in the king’s presence. 20 And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the diviners, and wise men, that were in all his kingdom.

21 And Daniel continued even to the first year of king Cyrus.

Yep, we got pretty much the entirty of Danial Chapter 1 as our OT reading today in the liturgical calandar. Anyway anyone else notice what happens here, yet again (as posted in several other examples). God gave graces, so that the prince of eunichs would find favor with him. I.e. if we were to beleive calvinism strictly speaking, this should be no problem for Danial. There shouldn’t be any need to negotiate, he should be able to pull an obi-wan on the prince of the eunichs so to speak. “Heres your food” ::wave hand:: “You dont’ want to give us this food, you want to give us clean foods” ::eunich complies::

But that’s not what happens here, Danial begs the prince of the eunichs, who is under the influence of Gods grace, to find favor with Danial to not give him unclean food. And what does he do? He says “Whoa, whoa whoa, you’re a great guy and all Danial, really I love you mante! But here’s the deal, if I let you go to the Kings table looking starved he’ll have my head!” Now that’s interesting, it would seem as if being under Gods grace, does not remove your free will. We’ve seen it over and over again in bible. God wants us to give our free will assent, he doesn’t want us to have no choice. If salvation were to work the way Calvin described, then what point would there be to human worship? What God wants if free will worship, he wants us to choose what is right.

 

[tweetymom]

Of course you can! Your answers unconditionally support his anti-Catholic theologies, and those of us that know you have come to expect that. We know when you answer him, it will most likely not be a Catholic response, since you reject the teachings of the Church.

Thank you

 

[guanophore]

I didn’t know Protestants believed we must be sanctified in order to be saved.

Most who have been influenced by monergism believe salvation has happened at the moment of first belief. Sanctification follows, but is not really conisdered part of salvation (that is already completed) but what God does to the elect.

 

[guanophore]

Oh noes! Didn’t this guy write The Gospel according to Rome?

He is a virulent anti-Catholic. I think my initial assessment may have been erroneous, though, because I found a blog of his castigating those who signed the ECT with Catholics, which 2nd supports, so I think maybe he is not fond of MacArthur after all. It is a very sad web site to read. he has so much hatred for Catholics, and gives so many anti–Catholic sermons.

 

[izoid]

John MacArthur is a gifted pastor and a godly man.

Adam also stated, “I love John MacArthur” in an earlier post.

I am hard on Adam because I cannot get a feel for who he really is, I think I know however! One the one hand he preaches ecumenism and then on the other he supports MacArthur and James White. He even links to articles written by them and encourages Catholics to read them. I tend to accept people based on what they do and not what they say!

 

[2nd_Adam]

Welcome to the thread, Forgiven. You are required to cite your sources here.

My plagarism software says this article came from here.. is that right? If you were in my class, you would be getting an F.

The OP will probably be very happy with your post. I think he is a fan of John MacArthur.

I do think Pastor John MacArthur is a gifted pastor/theologian. I used to read and listen to his material about 10 years ago. Since I became more Reformed, I have not been reading and listening to his material, although he is still a gifted teacher. I like to study and read the old guys such as Augustine, Edwards, Owen, Bunyan, Watson, Calvin, etc… You probably wonder why Reformed Christians love Augustine since he was a Catholic Bishop. Well, as you know, he lived way before the Protestant Reformation, but I personally believe if Augustine lived during the Protestant Reformation… I believe Augustine would be one of the main Protestant Reformers alongside with Luther and Calvin. Since we are discussing pastors, evangelists and theologians that I like… it is interesting to note that I also like John Newton who is the author of the hymn Amazing Grace. Newton was a Calvinist Reformer, but find it puzzling that Catholic Churches play his hymn Amazing Grace since his theology is Reformed and not Catholic. What’s up with that brother?

Reformed Theology in a hymn

Amazing Grace Lyrics

John Newton (1725-1807)

Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.

T’was Grace that taught my heart to fear.
And Grace, my fears relieved.
How precious did that Grace appear
The hour I first believed.

Through many dangers, toils and snares
I have already come;
'Tis Grace that brought me safe thus far
and Grace will lead me home.

The Lord has promised good to me.
His word my hope secures.
He will my shield and portion be,
As long as life endures.

Yea, when this flesh and heart shall fail,
And mortal life shall cease,
I shall possess within the veil,
A life of joy and peace.

When we’ve been here ten thousand years
Bright shining as the sun.
We’ve no less days to sing God’s praise
Than when we’ve first begun.

 

[izoid]

I do think Pastor John MacArthur is a gifted pastor/theologian. I used to read and listen to his material about 10 years ago. Since I became more Reformed, I have not been reading and listening to his material, although he is still a gifted teacher. I like to study and read the old guys such as Augustine, Edwards, Owen, Bunyan, Watson, etc… You probably wonder why Reformed Christians love Augustine since he was a Catholic Bishop. Well, as you know, he lived way before the Protestant Reformation, but I personally believe if Augustine lived during the Protestant Reformation… I believe Augustine would be one of the main Protestant Reformers alongside with Luther and Calvin.

That is quite the statement! First you claim the Pope supports Luther and now you claim Augustine would have been a Protestant. Ecumenism at its best!

 

[zerinus]

It really doesn’t matter if Protestants believe these truths and Catholics don’t. What really matters is what God reveals about the doctrines of adoption through propitation. I will post the Scripture proofs as soon as I am able.

I will believe it when I see it!

Sundays are family days, so I will continue to juggle my time on Catholic Answers. Adoption through Propitation… is it true? Full atonement, who can believe this wonder great news of God? Did Christ actually pay for all the sins for His elect, or did he only die on the cross to make salvation possible for all men? Did Christ rescue sinners from their sins, or did Christ only make a way for all to be saved but His life and death is not enough to be saved?

Okay sunshine, you want a one paragraph answer, I will give you a one paragraph answer: Jesus actually paid for all the sins of all mankind, not just for those of His “elect”. By so doing He made salvation possible (not inevitable) for all mankind on condition of faith and repentance. Christ rescued sinners from their sins on condition of faith and repentance. The Atonement was universal from Christ’s point of view, but conditional from our point of view. He has fulfilled His part; we must also fulfill our part for it take effect in our lives. Scriptural references were previously given. However, since this is proving a sticky point, I have added it in a Blog post which you can read here. If you disagree with my conclusions, you are very welcome to add your own comment to my Blog to argue your point of view. By the way, for the benefit of those who found my Book of Mormon references on this subject interesting, I have added more such references to it which they might like to look at.

Sufficiency of Christ

“The Council of Trent anathematizes anyone who says you can be saved without the grace of God. The Reformers, however, never claimed Rome believed you can be saved apart from grace. That wasn’t the debate. The debate of the Reformation was never, ever about the necessity of grace, it was always about the sufficiency of grace. That remains the issue today in so many contexts.” - James White

In other words, what James White believes (and you agree with) is that you are predestined to be saved. “Grace” saves you without any voluntary act on your part. That is what that means. Well that is corruption and perversion of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and abhorrent to Bible teachings. It is the abomination of Protestantism, especially of Calvinism, and one of the most damnable heresies ever invented in Christian history.

 

[2nd_Adam]

That is quite the statement! First you claim the Pope supports Luther and now you claim Augustine would have been a Protestant. Ecumenism at its best!

You just want out of my perpetual doghouse, don’t you?