|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Salvation and Catholicism - 6/4/2008 9:26:37 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Hi Odeliya,
You sed: No, it doesn’t mean apart from love, hope, baptism of the Holy Spirit , etc.. I answered that one already Here. But there is a difference b/n saying 1) your faith should and would cause you to obey God , be baptized, etc. and 2) without water baptism nobody can be possibly saved and enter the kingdom of God.
So I know where yer coming from, let's distinguish the different positions on SF.
1. Faith alone justifies and the justified person doesn't have to do anything else (obey, get baptized, partake of the Eucharist, live a moral life, etc). This is the antinomian position. It is irrelevant to one's justification and ultimately his salvation whether or not his faith produces fruit.
2. Faith alone justifies and the justified person has to produce some fruit (but not necessarily any particular kind) as evidence that he has genuine "saving" faith.
3. Faith alone justifies and the justified person has to produce a particular kind of fruit (say, speak in tongues, get baptized) as evidence that he has genuine "saving" faith.
Note: In 1-3, justification is viewed as a one-time thing, and once a person is truly justified, he cannot lose it, and the fruit is only evidence of and not causative of justification. Also, in 2 -3, once a person has been truly justified, his faith will necessarily produce the requisite fruit.
4. Faith alone justifies, and, if it is maintained, will produce some fruit. Justification can be lost if faith is lost, but sinning or the failure to produce fruit will not cause a loss of justification.
5. Faith alone justifies initially, and, if it is maintained, will produce some fruit. But justification can be lost if faith is lost or if a persons sins seriously.
Which category best describes your take on SF?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Catholicism - 6/4/2008 9:32:24 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Regarding Turretinfan (affectionately known as Turrret, Turrethead, Turtlehead, etc.), he is a good dude and a stout-hearted defender of the Reformed POV. I will check out his blog.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Catholicism - 6/4/2008 10:38:35 AM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2390
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
Of, ferd, don’t you offer a jewish girl multiple choices, I want to take it all, if not , then i suffer from buyers guilt. 
Well, antinomian position is out, dismiss that,p.3 is too legalistic,4, 5 is out for I am once saved always saved(the version of it that states only God knows who is saved, we are not to judge)
I would also define “fruit”– It’s not something we can always plainly see.Love, longsuffering, patience, and the other fruit of HS are hard to detect and prove its authenticity by non spiritual means of our actions. We can’t definitely measure love in actual deeds, so to speak. We can make an educated guess, but, as any evening newscast or gas station tags can prove, people get deceived all the time.
Which leaves 2. quote:
Faith alone justifies and the justified person has to produce some fruit (but not necessarily any particular kind) as evidence that he has genuine "saving" faith. as legitimate view for me then.
Now... what's next ? which kind of trouble did I get myself into again?
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Catholicism - 6/5/2008 3:56:35 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Why none at all, my dear. Yer just a Category 2 Jewish Girl, that's all.
So, how did a nice Jewish girl such as yerself come to be in such a state?
cordially,
ferd
< Message edited by ferdgoodfellow -- 6/5/2008 4:03:15 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Catholicism - 6/6/2008 8:10:58 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Back to my topic. Where did this idea of the purely imputed nature of justification come from? McGrath says it was in the ancient Hebrew understanding all along, but the Church came to have to have a distorted notion of justification. The problem comes from difficulties in translation. The Hebrew "tsedaqah" was translated first into the Greek "dikaioun" and then into Latin "iustificare". If I understand McGrath correctly, he is putting much of the blame initially on the limitations of the Greek language and also on Augustine's wrong understanding of the Greek dikaioun. St. Augie simply misrepresented the Greek word to refer to "making righteous" instead of "declaring righteous."
And then this error was reinforced when the Greek is translated into the Latin "iustificare," which implies merit in the object being viewed as opposed to the object merely being considered righteous.
It will take me a while to evaluate this, but that is McGrath's thesis.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Catholicism - 6/6/2008 8:18:19 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
But one thing is clear. McGrath doesn't boldly claim, as Buchanan does, that the SF, purely imputational, understanding of justification and righteousness was pervasive in the early church. The patristic record simply doesn't support that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Catholicism - 6/6/2008 8:37:59 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
McGrath says this at p. 21:
quote:
The initial transference of a Hebrew concept to a Greek, and subsequently to a Latin, context points to a fundamental alteration in the concepts of 'justification' and 'righteousness' as the gospel spread from its Palestinian source to the western world. The most significant such development, as we shall see, was the widespread assumption that the all-important theological notion of the 'righteousness of God'--which, for Paul, lay at the heart of the Christian gospel--was about God giving each person their due. And as Martin Luther would later point out, that meant condemning sinners such as him, and justifying those who were already righteous. What, he asked, was good news about that?
< Message edited by ferdgoodfellow -- 6/6/2008 9:48:54 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Catholicism - 6/6/2008 9:35:11 AM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2390
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
You sport! You mean i am in a state of confusion? yes, confusion is my middle name. Great, you asked for a job - you got it, get me out of it then:)
To me that position sounds like the most reasonable. Well present your view of why catholic view of salvation is better, (straightout and to the point) and we got ourselves a debate until the second coming. See my impression was that in essence it is the same thing. You are not saying that works actually contribute to salvation itself, it is 100% the work of God, no?
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Catholicism - 6/6/2008 9:50:38 AM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2390
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
McGrath says it was in the ancient Hebrew understanding all along, but the Church came to have to have a distorted notion of justification. The problem comes from difficulties in translation. The Hebrew "tsedaqah" was translated first into the Greek "dikaioun" and then into Latin "iustificare". If I understand McGrath correctly, he is putting much of the blame initially on the limitations of the Greek language and also on Augustine's wrong understanding of the Greek dikaioun. St. Augie simply misrepresented the Greek word to refer to "making righteous" instead of "declaring righteous."
And then this error was reinforced when the Greek is translated into the Latin "iustificare," which implies merit in the object being viewed as opposed to the object merely being considered righteous.
I appreciate you being short, but as time permits you ought to elaborate where that mcgrath fellow is getting with this. The whole concept in judaism alone is much , much deeper then can be expressed by one word ( one version of translation). THere is more to it, plus tzedakah, or how to spell it in english properly, is never used alone. It is not a separate, in spiritual sense, term.
So you elaborate, i will elaborate a bit later as i get time, and everybody is happy. 
Wow, we havent fought in ,like, whole 3 days here already ! Cease fire is temporarily achived on the thread. Where is madame Kate, our beloved mod? that is the piece of news this angelic patience woman needs to see. That's the first for sure. 
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Catholicism - 6/6/2008 9:59:41 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Hehe
Yep yer confused. Everybody's confused except me, cuz I know everything. (not!)
Catholics, following Trent, heartily agree that there is nothing we do before our initial justification which merits justification. And even after our initial justification nothing that we do strictly merits that God justify us. But when a justified person, acting in faith and seeking to please God, performs good works (always imperfectly), God views them graciously. We are, after all, his children. And we can "justifiably" expect God to increase our justification, not because anything we do in inherently meritful and binds and obligates God, but because He has promised to do so.
Also in contrast to Cat. 2 SF, us guys believe that justification can be lost through losing faith or serious sin. It is not a one time thing. OSAS and all that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Catholicism - 6/6/2008 6:27:41 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 889
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
Where did this idea of the purely imputed nature of justification come from? I dare say that this notion of justification is what keeps many people away from Christianity, as there is inherently no justice in it. I believe people see this and dismiss Christianity as non-sense, observing the hypocrisy that this doctrine leads to in some.
What I mean by that is this the notion that I may rob a convenience store, injure three clerks, and deny the owner of his justly earned revenues, and then fall to my knees, profess Jesus as Lord and Savior, and in that one act balance the scales of justice - is on its face absurd. Whereas some in Christendom would instruct that a way of showing the intention and sincerity of accepting Jesus is to return the looted goods to the owner, pay for the medical bills and rehab for the injured clerks, and do whatever else I am able to attempt to restore or recompense the injured or damaged parties to my act. Or - perhaps to not have gone on a rampage to begin with.
It is in this action that we are repentant, because we not only have to say we are, we have to act like we mean it. Nothing we can do can put the smoke back in the bottle, but we are trying to tip the scales of justice. If society then deems that we deserve a punishment for our actions, we cheerfully serve that, as well.
These are not the dreaded "works", but what justice seeks. And God is a just God after all. The notion that we may actually be responsible and accountable for our acts is a foreign notion to some.
By simply seeking the "righteousness" of Jesus as if it were some magic substance to get out of jail free is in grave error. Jesus righteousness is available for those who mimic Jesus - because those who do mimic Him will be righteous as Him, not by some sleight-of-hand or bait-and-switch before God (who cannot be fooled and sees us just as we are...), but by effort, discipline, self-control, introspection, examination and decisions to discern and do God's will and subordinate our wills and wishes to His for us.
What exactly is the origin of "imputed" righteousness. I hear it all the time, as if it is a Scriptural given. But Scriptures never frames it the way people do who believe it means "get out of jail free". Scriptures as the acceptance and taking on of Christ's righteousness being the result of living in right relationship with God and obeying and yielding to the grace supplied by that relationship. So - the righteousness is real, not virtual or "declared".
< Message edited by Doghouse -- 6/6/2008 6:34:08 PM >
_____________________________
When someone virtuous turns away from virtue to commit iniquity...it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die. But if he turns from the wickedness he has committed, he does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life" - Ez 18:25-28
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Catholicism - 6/7/2008 8:43:41 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Hey DH,
quote:
I dare say that this notion of justification is what keeps many people away from Christianity, as there is inherently no justice in it. I believe people see this and dismiss Christianity as non-sense, observing the hypocrisy that this doctrine leads to in some.
With regard to justice, all doctrines of salvation violate strict justice, for in none of them do we git our just desserts. And all doctrines of salvation can be abused and lead to hypocrisy in some. On the Catholic side, someone can wantonly sin all the while proclaiming that it can all be put right in confession tomorrow.
But the imputed-only understanding of justification creates unique problems, for us hooman beans tend to act according to our self concept. If I accept that I am always a dirty rotten sinner dung hill, albeit a forgiven one, then I will tend to act like one. Even in his day already, Luther complained about this. And if I believe that I am an eternally secure dirty rotten sinner dung hill, the problem is only compounded.
But if I believe that I, as a justified person, am truly a child of God who has the spark of divine life in me, then that puts a different complexion on things. Granted, this is all none of my doing. Tis all God's grace. But it is more than just how God looks at me. It is just as much about what I have become.
The imputed-only understanding of justification inevitably led to the separation of justification and sanctification. If nothing I do before or after my initial justification contributes to it, then good works have to be put into a different category. The only argument, then, is whether or not growing in holiness is the necessary evidence of someone having been truly justified. The antinomian faction, taking the SF view to its logical extreme, says no. The Lordship Salvation faction disagrees. There is a kind of mushy middle ground as well.
< Message edited by ferdgoodfellow -- 6/7/2008 8:50:43 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Catholicism - 6/7/2008 8:54:28 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
But my Evangelical friends, of any variety, all know in their hearts that they have been given a very great gift and they all strive, often much better than I do, to be holy, even holier than their soteriology requires them to be. And even though many profess eternal security and can tell me when they were saved, they still have to deal with sin in their lives, sometimes serious sin. The way they do it is to make an altar call and make another profession just in case they weren't truly saved the first time.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Catholicism - 6/7/2008 9:08:23 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Odeleya,
McGrath is mindful that the Hebrew words were rich in meaning and that the Greek words had to be enlarged to accomodate them. But he is saying that St. Augie set on the wrong path insofar as interpreting the Greek is concerned and that the problem was compounded after the translation into Latin.
gotta run. lawn to mow, dog to walk and Gilder to blame for it. have a good weekend to you all.
ferd
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Catholicism - 6/7/2008 12:17:40 PM
|
|
|
martyfran
Posts: 565
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
On the Catholic side, someone can wantonly sin all the while proclaiming that it can all be put right in confession tomorrow.
Of course, the problem is that it assumes that tomorrow they will repent. Since, everyone seems to believe that repentance is required for salvation. Just the act of confessing will not absolve one of his sins.
It is similar to someone who is living in an adulterous relationship who responds to an altar call at a Baptist church. If they continued living in the relationship, people would have cause to question the validity of their salvation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Catholicism - 6/7/2008 4:58:01 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 576
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
What exactly is the origin of "imputed" righteousness. I hear it all the time, as if it is a Scriptural given.
I would venture to say while the idea was batted about pre-Reformation, good ole Marty L. and Johnny C. (Luther and Calvin for those who haven't guessed) elaborated on it a bit. As to hearing it all the time, whew, you got that right. If a Protestant, most any Protestant, but especially an Evangelical and I'll toss in Lutherans too, even dare suggest they do not subscribe to imputed righteousness, well then, you are sorely misinformed. Or, in some camps, rejecting the truth of God's Word and risking your salvation. Because to reject imputed righteousness is to reject the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. To question IR is to question our very Lord when He said on the cross "It is finished."
So for me, I am in a bit of a quandary. I don't subscribe to IR. Yet I am not RC nor am I EO, nor am I an Evangelical Prot. nor am I a Lutheran. Not sure what I am at this point. Just a sinner, saved by the grace of God and learning to love Him and grow in His grace and knowledge.
quote:
But Scriptures never frames it the way people do who believe it means "get out of jail free".
I understand ya, Dog. While Holy Scripture invites us to come and partake of the Living water freely, and while our salvation was paid for us on the cross by Christ, our Paschal Lamb, freely does not mean - I can sin all I want, do whatever I want, and still be saved because OSAS, and after all God cannot go back on His promise. This view implicitly and explicitly encourages Christians to sin without conviction.
quote:
Scriptures as the acceptance and taking on of Christ's righteousness being the result of living in right relationship with God and obeying and yielding to the grace supplied by that relationship. So - the righteousness is real, not virtual or "declared".
Amen to the bolded statement. I would give an analogy that when a person dresses up for Halloween as a hobo, he may seem to be a hobo by outward appearances, but underneath all the make-up and garb, he indeed is not a hobo. Now the only thing that could make him a hobo is is he would actually begin to live like a hobo. If he gave up his job and stopped working to beg on the streets, and his clothes became shabby and his whiskers grew, and his body became filthy - THEN HE WOULD INDEED BE A HOBO.
In the same way, one who claims to be a Christian actually LIVES like a Christian. They love their neighbors and their brothers and sisters in Christ, they give testimony by their deeds and words what Christ is doing in their lives. IOW, they are FOR REAL. Not just dressed up in some superficial garb of a Christian, but actually living the sanctified, holy life.
Heavendweller
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Catholicism - 6/8/2008 8:14:18 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 889
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
I would give an analogy that when a person dresses up for Halloween as a hobo, he may seem to be a hobo by outward appearances, but underneath all the make-up and garb, he indeed is not a hobo. Now the only thing that could make him a hobo is is he would actually begin to live like a hobo. If he gave up his job and stopped working to beg on the streets, and his clothes became shabby and his whiskers grew, and his body became filthy - THEN HE WOULD INDEED BE A HOBO. This is, in fact, one of the best analogies I've ever heard to capture what I mean when I say I have problems with some people's view of imputed righteusness.
_____________________________
When someone virtuous turns away from virtue to commit iniquity...it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die. But if he turns from the wickedness he has committed, he does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life" - Ez 18:25-28
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Catholicism - 6/8/2008 2:45:41 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 576
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Heavendweller said:"I would give an analogy that when a person dresses up for Halloween as a hobo, he may seem to be a hobo by outward appearances, but underneath all the make-up and garb, he indeed is not a hobo. Now the only thing that could make him a hobo is is he would actually begin to live like a hobo. If he gave up his job and stopped working to beg on the streets, and his clothes became shabby and his whiskers grew, and his body became filthy - THEN HE WOULD INDEED BE A HOBO. quote:
Doghouse responded: "This is, in fact, one of the best analogies I've ever heard to capture what I mean when I say I have problems with some people's view of imputed righteusness."
Dare I say I've noticed there is a presumption that can arise within both the RC camp and the Protestant evangelical camp, (as well as the various mainline Prot. camps). Some say that this idea of "imputed righteousness" is a guarantee that they will always be a child of God. That there is nothing they can do that would cause them to fall away from Christ, and grieve the Holy Spirit to the extent that they would lose their standing before God. The "once saved always saved" camp comes to mind. But then we have the "perseverance of the saints" belief that also says those who are truly His will never fall away. That once they are justified before God and made His child, it's sealed, a done deal, period.
Along the same line of thinking, we have those in the RC camp and elsewhere (mainline Prots) who would claim that their baptism is a guarantee that they are a child of God, and they believe that their baptism ensures that they will go to heaven, period. So they sin, go to confession, or perhaps not, sin, live like the devil, and still think that they are going to Heaven.
The problem with all of these views is that they place entirely too much emphasis on a one time event in their lives, whether it be the moment they believed and were saved/regenerated/born again, or the moment they were baptized.
I have always understood Holy Scripture to teach that we must ENDURE TO THE END to be saved. That inheritance which is promised us is not something that is given to us cavalierly upon confession/baptism/regeneration. Rather, it is a promise that will be fulfilled upon the completion of our earthly lives, provided that we continue steadfast in faith, as it is written, "For if God did not spare the natural branches (the Jews), neither will he spare you. (the gentiles) Note then the kindness and the severity of God; severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off." Romans 11:21 & 22. Our salvation is not unconditional. The apostle Paul specifically used the word "provided" to emphasize that steadfast in faith is required of us in order to receive what God has promised, that is, our full inheritance. No matter how hard one tries to juggle scriptures, we cannot somehow get away with living like the ungodly and unrepentant in this world, and then make it to Heaven because of a past event in and of itself. We must be zealous to confirm our call and election in order that we never fall. II Peter 1:10
There are things we must do (nasty word among many) in order to continue in grace and faith and love. The admonitions and warnings in Holy Scripture are especially given to the household of God. If we become arrogant and think possession of heaven is ours no matter what we do or how we live, we are sorely deceived.
"And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister." Colossians 1:24
Heavendweller
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Catholicism - 6/9/2008 7:30:58 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Hi Martyfran,
quote:
Of course, the problem is that it assumes that tomorrow they will repent. Since, everyone seems to believe that repentance is required for salvation. Just the act of confessing will not absolve one of his sins.
It is similar to someone who is living in an adulterous relationship who responds to an altar call at a Baptist church. If they continued living in the relationship, people would have cause to question the validity of their salvation.
Right. One needs to sincerely repent.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Catholicism - 6/9/2008 8:06:59 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Hey HD,
quote:
I would venture to say while the idea was batted about pre-Reformation, good ole Marty L. and Johnny C. (Luther and Calvin for those who haven't guessed) elaborated on it a bit.
The idea that the righteousness of God is only imputed to those he has justified was, according to McGrath, an invention of the 1500's. It may have had some foundation in the theology of the Late Middle Ages (I haven't read that chapter yet), but the notion was never before taught by the Church or serious entertained by anyone who left any record of their thoughts. Augustine didn't believe it. No one prior to Augie was a proponent thereof.
This is McGrath's pretty firm conclusion, and he is aware of the implications for traditional protestant apologetics. But concludes thusly (p. 218):
quote:
That there are no 'forerunners of the Reformation doctrines of justification' has little theological significance today, given current thinking on the nature and development of doctrine, which renders Bossuet's static model, on which he based his critique of Protestantism, obsolete.
In this view, SF, imputed righteousness, etc. can all be understood in terms of doctrinal development. It was time, in the grand scheme of salvation history, for this point to be clarified. Just as the great Christological and Trinitarian doctrines had to be hammered out in the Partistic era, the great SF doctrines had to articulated in the Reformation Era.
But there are lots of problems with this view of salvation history. For one, we are talking about the essence of the Gospel here. Why would God deny mankind the essence of the Gospel for 1500 years? And if the Great Salvation controversies of Reformation times were God-ordained, why hasn't the controvery settled down? It's still going on after 500 years with no end in sight and a great multiplicity of views on the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Catholicism - 6/9/2008 8:24:10 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Think about it. There are no forerunners of the Reformation on this all important subject. The package put together by Luther/Calvin represented a "fundamental discontinuity" introduced "into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before." (p. 217).
Now Protestants can still argue that this was a correct development. But to admit that doctrines can develop is a major concession to the Catholic position.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Catholicism - 6/9/2008 11:16:39 AM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2390
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
Catholics, following Trent, heartily agree that there is nothing we do before our initial justification which merits justification. And even after our initial justification nothing that we do strictly merits that God justify us. But when a justified person, acting in faith and seeking to please God, performs good works (always imperfectly), God views them graciously. We are, after all, his children. And we can "justifiably" expect God to increase our justification, not because anything we do in inherently meritful and binds and obligates God, but because He has promised to do so.
Also in contrast to Cat. 2 SF, us guys believe that justification can be lost through losing faith or serious sin. It is not a one time thing. OSAS and all that.
Expand on the highlighted, please. How can we be "partially justified"? Istn it like pregnancy, yes or not ? We are justified, done deal. That is how I understand it.
I dont deny the importance of christian living following the initail conversion, but that is besides the point. We agree we dont earn justification by life of obedience.
I can agree to disagree with you on osas, or perseverance of the saints,at least for now, ferd..:D]
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Catholicism - 6/9/2008 11:28:26 AM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2390
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
Imputed righteousness is not the same as a license to sin- for " all is paid for", my beloved brethren and sistren.
You seem to be confusing the current pathetic condition of organized christianity,largely characterized by total lukewarmness and unrepented sinning; with IR.
I know those who believe IR and live like a real Christian and those who dont believe it that do. And there are fake christians on both sides.
That doctrine has no bearing on how a christian lives his life. It's unwise generalisation to say it does. It's like saying Protestants love God and live Christlike lives much more then the Catholics. Or the other way around.I've seen catholics that are more christlike then protestants, and catholics that are ungodly or only religious. And protestants the same way.
For real, that is the biggest puzzle to me when someone tries to say that his denom is better in that regard. It makes no more sense then saying " all women named Kate are good and all named Jane are bad" "Quality" of chirstian life is not dependent on your denom( presuming it's real chirstian not some bogus WoF of so).
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Salvation and Catholicism - 6/9/2008 5:43:13 PM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Hi Odeliya,
Us guys don't think justification is an on/off state (either you are or you ain't). And we think of degrees of justification (more or less of it), as well as its complete absence.
Also, after our initial justification, our faith working in love contributes to our justification. When a justified person performs good works in faith, he doesn't earn justification in the strict sense. No one merely by his working can put God in a postition of obligation. But he can expect to be rewarded by reason of God's graciousness.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
