L
ltwin
Guest
Yes, I could agree to that.
- Status
L
lanman87
Guest
Please define what it means to “Merit with Christ”?
F
fhansen
Guest
Ok. While God would want us perfect, since that’s an ultimate purpose of His and He didn’t create us to be imperfect, love most aptly describes the standard He uses. He wants us perfected in love to put it one way.
Anyway, the theology I most object to is the one that places regeneration totally prior to the movement of man’s will, or without regard to it. This is a very perverted false gospel IMO.
Anyway, the theology I most object to is the one that places regeneration totally prior to the movement of man’s will, or without regard to it. This is a very perverted false gospel IMO.
Last edited:
F
fhansen
Guest
I guess more questions are raised as I consider some of the thoughtful answers presented here from non-Catholics. The teaching on imputed or declared righteousness is used by some to insist that no sin past, present, or future can separate us from Christ. But it seems to me that some here are saying that justice is, indeed, infused/imparted to a believer at justification in one sense; he’s made a new creation and indwelt by Christ, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit. This cannot help but produce justice or righteousness in him, to constitute justice in him-and tend to oppose and exclude sin and the “old man” who desires it. It would also mean that hope and love are inevitable as natural consequences of this union.
Can it be said that righteousness is not merely imputed, that justification consists of real justice given, that the believer, himself, becomes more just by the fact that God now indwells him in a partnership or communion, even as his will is never overruled, leaving him to still struggle between the two powers of good and evil with the possibility of his losing that battle and forfeiting salvation? If the doctrine of imputed righteousness means simply and primarily that we’re forgiven of injustice while not denying that we must be and are also filled in some way with justice then it’s not inconsistent with the Catholic faith on that point.
Can it be said that righteousness is not merely imputed, that justification consists of real justice given, that the believer, himself, becomes more just by the fact that God now indwells him in a partnership or communion, even as his will is never overruled, leaving him to still struggle between the two powers of good and evil with the possibility of his losing that battle and forfeiting salvation? If the doctrine of imputed righteousness means simply and primarily that we’re forgiven of injustice while not denying that we must be and are also filled in some way with justice then it’s not inconsistent with the Catholic faith on that point.
Last edited:
L
lanman87
Guest
Faith is they key point. I believe we have been (past tense) saved by grace through faith… are being saved by grace through faith… and will be saved by grace through faith. Basically, that Ephesians 2:8-10 is talking about the totality of salvation, not just justification. If there is a way to lose salvation it is only by completely losing faith in Christ. Our actual righteousness will vary throughout or lives as we struggle against sin and to be obedient to Christ. But Christ righteousness is imputed to those who have faith in Him and His righteousness is the righteousness by which we are given the gift of eternal life. As long as we are “In Christ” by faith then we are spiritually alive and will be saved.
Of course, the evidence that we are “in Christ” is that our hearts have been changed and we seek His Kingdom and His Righteousness. Therefore if someone says I’m “In Christ” and yet doesn’t seek after righteousness then he is deceived and the truth is not in him. The absence of the struggle against sin and the absence of loving God and loving others are both indications of a false profession of faith.
That is classic evangelical teaching. The consequence of “Union with Christ” is to become more Christlike. We are changed and start living in our earthly life what we are Spiritually and positionally (a born-again beloved Child of God)
In the Southern Baptist and most American Evangelical world… Regeneration, Justification, and being born again by the Holy Spirit all happen at the same moment. I was taught that when a non-Christian hears the gospel message to believe and repent, the Holy Spirit convicts the unbeliever of their sin and makes them aware of their need for forgiveness and “Salvation”. At the moment of conversion/belief they are made alive, justified and indwelled by the Holy Spirit. I had not heard of the idea of regeneration proceeding justification until I studied reformed theology.
F
fhansen
Guest
Ok, but maybe you can make a distinction here for me. Apparently you are not saying that as long as we continue to trust in/ rely on Christ -and perhaps on His imputed righteousness standing in the stead of our unrighteousness, we will be saved, regardless of any sin. But instead you’re saying that we simply will not continue and persist in serious sin if we have true faith. Would this be correct?
I mean, where I have an issue is highlighted by a statement by a poster on a different forum, where the doctrines of sola fide and imputed righteousness have led him to conclude, when responding to another poster who suggested that God wants us sinless/righteous:
I mean, we should all be quite alarmed I’d hope if we were to find ourselves steeped in sin-and yet, at that point maybe we wouldn’t even care anyway. A new change of heart and repentance would be called for, but none of us can predict with absolute certainty which camp we’ll fall into; those who never fall away in any major way, those may fall way but then return, and those who fall away and never return. And then the question inevitably comes up, did the latter never have true faith to begin with- or, alternatively , is it possible for us to possess and then forfeit that gift? For myself Matt 25:31-46 puts it all into a pretty simple perspective. The sheep and the goats are separated according to what they did, or failed to do, for “the least of these”.
At the end of the day God, alone, knows with perfect certainty whose names are written in the Book of Life, who will persevere and who will not. But we better assess our own level of fruitful actions-what we do-if we’re to have any reason for assurance of salvation.
I understand that sola fide doesn’t have to lead to wrong understanding of or confusion about the gospel; I just think it’s contributed widely to planting such seeds however.
I mean, where I have an issue is highlighted by a statement by a poster on a different forum, where the doctrines of sola fide and imputed righteousness have led him to conclude, when responding to another poster who suggested that God wants us sinless/righteous:
So the question for some comes down to whether or not my personal unrighteousness matters at all, so long as I keep believing in and appealing to the righteousness of Christ.
I mean, we should all be quite alarmed I’d hope if we were to find ourselves steeped in sin-and yet, at that point maybe we wouldn’t even care anyway. A new change of heart and repentance would be called for, but none of us can predict with absolute certainty which camp we’ll fall into; those who never fall away in any major way, those may fall way but then return, and those who fall away and never return. And then the question inevitably comes up, did the latter never have true faith to begin with- or, alternatively , is it possible for us to possess and then forfeit that gift? For myself Matt 25:31-46 puts it all into a pretty simple perspective. The sheep and the goats are separated according to what they did, or failed to do, for “the least of these”.
At the end of the day God, alone, knows with perfect certainty whose names are written in the Book of Life, who will persevere and who will not. But we better assess our own level of fruitful actions-what we do-if we’re to have any reason for assurance of salvation.
I understand that sola fide doesn’t have to lead to wrong understanding of or confusion about the gospel; I just think it’s contributed widely to planting such seeds however.
Last edited:
L
lanman87
Guest
I’m saying the opposite. That as long as we continue to trust/belief/rely on Christ we are saved. Any sins we commit while we are “In Christ” (which comes by faith) will not cause us to be cast aside and lose our salvation. Both our initial “forgiveness” and ongoing “forgiveness” come from being in a true faith relationship with Christ. As long as we have faith then we are saved by grace and not ourselves.
From an outsider trying to understanding all the nuances of Catholicism, which isn’t easy to do, it seems to me that Catholicism teaches that conversion is given at Baptism at which time our sins are forgiven and we are made righteous. Basically, the chalk board is wiped clean. But in order to keep the chalk board clean you have to live a “sacramental life”, which continually wipes the chalk board. In other words, We are initially saved by faith through grace but we are kept saved by ourselves (as we work with Christ) as we partake in the sacraments and do works of love. Faith and initial Justification don’t actually save us, they give us the opportunity and ability to ultimately be saved.
The understanding I was taught is that not only does faith/conversion wipe the chalk board clean but it also keeps the chalk board clean. The blood of Christ isn’t a one time thing it is an ongoing fountain that continually washes away the sin of those who are “in Christ”. This ongoing fountain isn’t access by Sacrament or acts of service/love but by a heart who is trusting in Christ alone. The Sacraments and acts of service (that we partake in) are a result of having a heart that is trusting in Christ alone.
That is also a classic protestant/evangelical teaching. The only way to be assured that we are actually “saved” is to look at heart and our actions and see if they are in harmony. It they are not in harmony and we have no desire or struggle to overcome our sinful actions then we have no assurance of our salvation. Even the OSAS Baptist teach that.
Last edited:
F
fhansen
Guest
Ok, but still with the caveat that fruit must be apparent, right? Otherwise the formula or recipe above, alone, does not quite work out for us. I mean the relationship itself must necessarily be judged subjectively by ourselves as to whether or not it consists in a faith that pleases God. The only objective way to judge it is by the effects, which should include works of righteousness. But i think the confusion comes, among Protestants, when we effectively separate our righteousness that comes by justification from actual, personal, righteousness. Because some are left in a state of uncertainty, which, again, I often hear about, regarding what, if anything, we need to do, whether we’re insulting Jesus by insinuating that we can and must do anything; just what is God’s will in the matter of our works? People generally know intuitively that something must change for the better in us, and that such a concept is meaningless unless the evidence is seen. A few, OTOH, seem to think it glorifies God if we acknowledge that it’s impossible for us not to sin and they then view faith as an escape from the obligation to be righteous. But our works, our orientation towards righteousness, not just “wanting” it but living it, matter at the end of the day.
To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. Rom 2:7
We have to understand that our entire existence is a partnership with God, without whom we can do nothing, let alone exist. But we obviously don’t even have to acknowledge His existence, let alone our need for Him, let alone love Him as we embrace a partnership or communion that we were actually made for, established by faith now which is the acknowledgment of His existence first of all, in response to revelation and grace. We’re given the freedom here on earth, a freedom that Adam “won”, to live as if there is no Master, and then to see what we do in such a scenario. How will we respond to grace, available as He now indwells us? What will we do with it, how will we “invest” it? Will we grow it, will we grow in the justice God has given us, in faith, hope, and love? Will we backslide, will we rest on our laurels, will we turn back away? Or is faith just a free ticket to heaven once we think we’ve obtained and expressed it? These questions on Sola Fide still aren’t fully answered for me, as I often encounter confusion on the matter.
Last edited:
F
fhansen
Guest
Actually the Church teaches that faith is a necessary component of our justification , and “the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the fellowship of His sons” as per the council of Trent. The issue is what we do from there, from that state of justice sacramentally received at baptism (the sacraments give us a simple, concrete and formal means to correctly know the will of God in these matters and to live out these basic truths by which His grace is received).
And yet, as Scripture makes clear, it’s entirely possible to fail in our perseverance.
Last edited:
L
lanman87
Guest
I’m simply trying to point out that “Faith alone” and “imputed righteousness” doesn’t necessarily conflict with that statement. The difference is that we believe faith is the sole instrument of our salvation, past, present and future. We are justified because of faith, we are sanctified because of faith and we will be glorified because of our faith through grace. Consequently, the only way to not persevere is to completely lose that faith.
But as you said, that brings up a lot of theological questions for the person who finds themselves in that situation. Did they ever really believe? Where they saying they believe just to appease my parents, wife or friends? Did they come to the conclusions that Christians are misled and Atheist are telling the truth? Did I just decide I want the temporary pleasure of sin more than I want God?
I don’t know the answer to those questions. But I can tell people that if you believe in and trust in Christ and live what you believe then you will be okay. If you believe and don’t live out what you believe, even imperfectly, then it means you really don’t believe. On the other hand if you live out a Christianity that is focused on what you do and trying to gain God’s Grace by what you do then you are also missing out of the point of the Gospel. Both attitudes are a danger to us as we strive to “Work out our salvation with fear and trembling”. The true Gospel is to believe and trust in Christ and then live out what you believe, trusting in the finished work of Christ and indwelling Holy Spirit to guide us into righteousness and hold us and show us grace and mercy when we fail in our battle with sin and selfishness.
F
fhansen
Guest
Thank you. I appreciate your replies. And I supposed we’ve sort of beat this one to death by now! 
But when Sola Fide is defined as you and others understand it here the doctrine is definitely less problematic for many of us. At the same time I’d say that it doesn’t mark out such a clear line between Protestant and Catholic teaching as the Reformers insisted on.
And it’s interesting to me that the Council of Trent pretty much already understood and addressed the different varieties or nuances of positions held by the Reformers.
But when Sola Fide is defined as you and others understand it here the doctrine is definitely less problematic for many of us. At the same time I’d say that it doesn’t mark out such a clear line between Protestant and Catholic teaching as the Reformers insisted on.And it’s interesting to me that the Council of Trent pretty much already understood and addressed the different varieties or nuances of positions held by the Reformers.
Last edited:
F
fhansen
Guest
Considering Sola Fide at this point it seems to me that if “faith” is to be qualified by saying that we’re saved by a faith that is not alone, because a justifying faith will always include works for one thing, then we ought to acknowledge that a real justice or righteousness is given man in some form or another at justification, or else works, etc, would not necessarily be forthcoming. So the difference between imputed and infused righteousness isn’t significant if they’re really speaking of different aspects of justification.
If justification consists of more than simply a change in status before God, but also in a positive ontological change in our beings towards justice, then imputed righteousness would deal strictly with the forgiveness aspect of our being justified- with injustice also cleansed/removed?- while infused righteousness would be the actual attainment of justice.
JMHO, FWIW, etc
If justification consists of more than simply a change in status before God, but also in a positive ontological change in our beings towards justice, then imputed righteousness would deal strictly with the forgiveness aspect of our being justified- with injustice also cleansed/removed?- while infused righteousness would be the actual attainment of justice.
JMHO, FWIW, etc
Last edited:
F
fhansen
Guest
The following is an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Apparently Luther originated the term “antinomianism”, or at least first used it for the purpose of describing what he recognized as an abuse of the doctrine of Sola Fide. They were already dealing with this problem back then, which the Council of Trent also affirmed.
Antinomianism -
The heretical doctrine that Christians are exempt from the obligations of moral law. The term first came into use at the Protestant Reformation, when it was employed by Martin Luther to designate the teachings of Johannes Agricola and his sectaries, who, pushing a mistaken and perverted interpretation of the Reformer’s doctrine of justification by faith alone to a far-reaching but logical conclusion, asserted that, as good works do not promote salvation, so neither do evil works hinder it; and, as all Christians are necessarily sanctified by their very vocation and profession, so as justified Christians, they are incapable of losing their spiritual holiness, justification, and final salvation by any act of disobedience to, or even by any direct violation of the law of God.
Antinomianism -
The heretical doctrine that Christians are exempt from the obligations of moral law. The term first came into use at the Protestant Reformation, when it was employed by Martin Luther to designate the teachings of Johannes Agricola and his sectaries, who, pushing a mistaken and perverted interpretation of the Reformer’s doctrine of justification by faith alone to a far-reaching but logical conclusion, asserted that, as good works do not promote salvation, so neither do evil works hinder it; and, as all Christians are necessarily sanctified by their very vocation and profession, so as justified Christians, they are incapable of losing their spiritual holiness, justification, and final salvation by any act of disobedience to, or even by any direct violation of the law of God.
L
lanman87
Guest
Apparently the 1st Century church dealt with a similar attitude among the early Christians. Romans 5 starts out as
5 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we[a] have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Through him we have also obtained access by faith[b] into this grace in which we stand, and we[c] rejoice[d] in hope of the glory of God. 3 Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
Romans 6 starts out with
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
The is verse 15 5 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!
We humans have been a fickle lot from the beginning. We have sought to justify our wrongdoing and sin and say that sin doesn’t have a consequence. Apparently, even today there is a “free grace” movement which is a very small minority and fringe group among American evangelical Christians. This movement is being countered by the preaching and teaching of other Evangelicals.
From the Article Linked:
First, FGT doesn’t accurately reflect the Reformation teaching of justification by faith alone, which was often summarized in the formula “We are justified by faith alone , but the faith that justifies is never alone ” (26). Translation: even though faith is the only human act God responds to in justification (it’s alone in that sense), faith never exists alone in the believer since it always brings with it certain other graces.
Third, FGT weakens the gospel by giving many professing Christians a false assurance of salvation. It’s not hard to see why this would happen. If repentance, good works, and continuing in belief don’t necessarily follow saving faith, then the lack of them can’t serve as evidence that our faith is dead,
Last edited:
F
fhansen
Guest
Yes, agree. I still question the doctrine of imputed righteousness though, if it means that nothing more than that constitutes man’s state of justice/righteousness. Because, if righteousness is only imputed, what keeps our fickle lot from seeking to “justify our wrongdoing and sin”, at least to the point where we should otherwise improve and desire to justify and act out such deeds less, while doing good works instead? I know you believe that something more is given: grace/the Spirit of God, but doesn’t that “something more” mean that man’s state of righteousness consists in more than forgiveness, but also in a positive change towards righteousness, i.e. in actual justice given?
This would be consistent with our being judged on works such as those done for “the least of these” in Matt 25 since they point to real justice/love in us, and it’s our justified state, of course, that qualifies us for eternal life.
This would be consistent with our being judged on works such as those done for “the least of these” in Matt 25 since they point to real justice/love in us, and it’s our justified state, of course, that qualifies us for eternal life.
Last edited:
L
lanman87
Guest
I’m re-reading John Piper’s excellent book Desiring God. Chapter 2 of the book is entitled Conversion.
By Conversion, Pipers says he means, “God’s work in a new birth, our faith in Christ, and the work of God in our lives by faith to help us obey Christ…
Conversion, understood as the coming into being of a new nature that will obey Christ, is no mere human decision. It is a human decision-but, oh so much more…
Saving faith has in it various elements. The nature of these elements makes faith a very powerful thing that produces changes in our lives. Unless we see this, the array of conditions for present and final salvation in the New Testament will be utterly perplexing.”
Then he list Acts 16:31, John 1:12, Acts 3:19, Hebrews 5:9, Matthew 18:3, Mark 8:34-35, Matthew 10:37, 1 Cor 16:22 and Luke 14:33 as a partial list.
Then he says, "We must believe in Jesus and receive Him and turn from our sin and obey Him and humble ourselves like little children and love Him more than we love our family, our possessions, and our own life. This is what it means to be converted to Christ. This alone is the way of life everlasting.
But what is it that holds all these conditions together and gives them unity? And what keeps them from becoming a way of earning salvation by works? One answer is the awesome reality of saving faith-- trusting in the pardon of God, the promises of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, not ourselves. This is the unifying key that not only unites us to Christ for justification, but also empowers us for sanctification"
I don’t know if that helps but that is what I thought of when I read your statement.
I don’t personally know anyone who thinks that Christianity is a one time decision. Conversion may be a one time decision but it is just the beginning of a new life. Christianity is walking in that new life in Christ and growing in faithfulness and understanding of what it means to follow Christ.
I guess you could say that we are justified and judged by imputed righteousness and we live and grow in infused righteousness in that as we live “in Christ” we are constantly being convicted by and led by the Holy Spirit to live a life worthy of the calling we have received.
By Conversion, Pipers says he means, “God’s work in a new birth, our faith in Christ, and the work of God in our lives by faith to help us obey Christ…
Conversion, understood as the coming into being of a new nature that will obey Christ, is no mere human decision. It is a human decision-but, oh so much more…
Saving faith has in it various elements. The nature of these elements makes faith a very powerful thing that produces changes in our lives. Unless we see this, the array of conditions for present and final salvation in the New Testament will be utterly perplexing.”
Then he list Acts 16:31, John 1:12, Acts 3:19, Hebrews 5:9, Matthew 18:3, Mark 8:34-35, Matthew 10:37, 1 Cor 16:22 and Luke 14:33 as a partial list.
Then he says, "We must believe in Jesus and receive Him and turn from our sin and obey Him and humble ourselves like little children and love Him more than we love our family, our possessions, and our own life. This is what it means to be converted to Christ. This alone is the way of life everlasting.
But what is it that holds all these conditions together and gives them unity? And what keeps them from becoming a way of earning salvation by works? One answer is the awesome reality of saving faith-- trusting in the pardon of God, the promises of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, not ourselves. This is the unifying key that not only unites us to Christ for justification, but also empowers us for sanctification"
I don’t know if that helps but that is what I thought of when I read your statement.
I don’t personally know anyone who thinks that Christianity is a one time decision. Conversion may be a one time decision but it is just the beginning of a new life. Christianity is walking in that new life in Christ and growing in faithfulness and understanding of what it means to follow Christ.
I guess you could say that we are justified and judged by imputed righteousness and we live and grow in infused righteousness in that as we live “in Christ” we are constantly being convicted by and led by the Holy Spirit to live a life worthy of the calling we have received.
Last edited:
F
fhansen
Guest
Thank you. There’s much here that is good and true. But it seems to still separate justification from actual justice or righteousness, justification from sanctification, salvation from being contingent on anything but faith and a righteousness that is strictly imputed, due to that faith. And it occurs to me that there are a variety of opinions out there on justification, regeneration, the role of faith, sometimes in subtle but significant ways. I guess maybe I’m looking for the CPC, The Catechism of the Protestant Church(es). 
Last edited:
L
lanman87
Guest
That pretty much nails the historical belief of Protestant/Evangelical Christians. I’m just pointing out that those who hold that belief still believe in practicing righteousness and works of love. Sometimes even more so than Catholics. I think Catholics sometimes have a hard time understanding why if we are “counted as righteous” because of faith then why we want to live righteously in our lives.
F
fhansen
Guest
Yes, I don’t think it’s necessarily an invalid question though. If nothing is really changed, in terms of internal righteousness in us, then what would be the “mechanism” for wanting to practice righteousness and works of love? Why would we necessarily care any more than we did before conversion? Unless, for example, we really do possess love now, even if that love only exists to begin with in infant form and needs to be exercised, strengthened, and grown by cooperating with God, by obeying His will. I mean, if we obeyed for any other reason, would that be a return to legalism?
Or I guess one could say that the sanctification process begins right away, with Christ living in and through us, but the Catholic would still insist that the way we live after receiving the gift of justification counts towards salvation-the “working out” of it. And this is related to the belief that our state of justice or righteousness, while free, nevertheless involves real justice given/restored, meaning that it can also be compromised and forfeited by returning to sin and away from God.
And related to this it’s understandable that within Protestantism there’s confusion or disagreement over whether or not salvation can be lost.
Or I guess one could say that the sanctification process begins right away, with Christ living in and through us, but the Catholic would still insist that the way we live after receiving the gift of justification counts towards salvation-the “working out” of it. And this is related to the belief that our state of justice or righteousness, while free, nevertheless involves real justice given/restored, meaning that it can also be compromised and forfeited by returning to sin and away from God.
And related to this it’s understandable that within Protestantism there’s confusion or disagreement over whether or not salvation can be lost.
Last edited:
F
fhansen
Guest
So I was trying to conjure up a concise formula that might be consistent with the beliefs of most of us while not compromising or watering down our respective positions:
Justification is necessary for salvation. We’re justified by faith. After justification, sin must decrease while good works increase, or else we should question whether or not we actually reside in a state of justice/righteousness, and therefore whether or not we possess eternal life.
It speaks in general terms and doesn’t cover all the bases, and purposefully leaves the question of different kinds of faith (dead vs saving faith, etc) out of the equation altogether.
Justification is necessary for salvation. We’re justified by faith. After justification, sin must decrease while good works increase, or else we should question whether or not we actually reside in a state of justice/righteousness, and therefore whether or not we possess eternal life.
It speaks in general terms and doesn’t cover all the bases, and purposefully leaves the question of different kinds of faith (dead vs saving faith, etc) out of the equation altogether.
Last edited:
- Status