|
Post by Michael Lofton on Feb 5, 2015 19:38:10 GMT
Feel free to contribute yoir thoughts on this topic.
|
|
|
Post by Glenn on Feb 6, 2015 13:16:39 GMT
The comparison you make is monumentally flawed. You’re trying to compare the supposed elusiveness of Titus 3, with the supposed elusiveness of the Trinity, thereby exonerating the elusive theory of RC justification supposedly taught in this passage. But you err, in that both are not elusive at all. While it is true that the intricacies of the Trinity can never be fully known this side of heaven, the FACT of an equal Triunity in the Godhead is clearly discernible in the Text, and this truth can be discovered without calling on any church magisterium. Likewise, the logical ramifications of Titus 3 militate against the RC theory of “initial” justification, because it speaks unambiguously of God’s ability to SAVE us without regard to our works; it does NOT even hint to anything relating to a desire to “initially” justify us, as you surmise. This is eisegesis at its worst. As I told you previously, when the Lord sets out to save someone, it is a foregone conclusion, as He will never fail in His desired purposes, nor can the "free-will" of puny man ever for a moment thwart his plans (Isa 46:10, Ps 135:6, Dan 4:34-5, Eph 1:11). But of course. However, in this instance, your advice does not apply, because words could not be clearer: the text is speaking of God’s prowess in having ALREADY saved (past tense) those to whom the apostle was referring to, and all without any regard to works of righteousness. Simple. And because he wanted his letters distributed to all the churches, we may assume that all future Christians are saved in like manner. You’re missing the fact that Paul and James use the word justification in two different ways! We read in Romans 2:13 that the doers of the law will be justified; but in 3:20 we are told that NO ONE will be justified by the works of the law. Is this a contradiction? No. This is where the whole of Scripture must come into play as you rightly suggested. We already are convinced that we’re NOT saved by works of righteousness per Titus 3:5, so 2:13 does NOT mean that we will be justified (in the SALVIFIC sense) by being a doer of the law! The word is used in the sense of Matt 11:19: “Wisdom is justified by her children”. That means, if someone is wise, their children (i.e., their works) will demonstrate it and thus justify Mr. Wisdom before men. So yes, I am a doer of the law and justified by my works, as Abraham was, in the sight of men, by what I DO, per 2:13, but ACTUAL justification in the sight of God, per 3:20, is NOT by being a doer of the law since God eliminated the law as a means of salvation in Acts 13:39. James likewise affirms: Having already been justified in the salvific sense by faith alone prior to offering Isaac (Rms 4:3), Abe wuzzz however, justified in the NON-salvific sense by the writer and US, who would read the account of his experience down through time, hence Mr. Wisdom (Abraham) was justified by his children (his act of offering Isaac, which verified his faith was genuine). The Text says, “Seest thou? (2:22). Men need to SEE these deeds when evaluating the validity of someone’s faith because they cannot read the heart. Paul makes it clear that Abe was NOT justified (in the salvific sense) by works, otherwise he would have room to boast (Rms 4:2). Catholics speculate that their good deeds (done via God’s grace of course!.....henceforth, "G.G.") removes all possibility of boasting and so Romans 4:2 could not possibly apply to THEM. Ridiculous! The lynchpin of your argument hinges on G.G. to solve all problems, but the fact is, that playing the grace card will be the very thing that sends you to hell. No where in Scripture is grace ever mentioned in such LOFTY terms, Mr. Lofton, so as to equate it with works that justify a person’s entry into heaven! See also Luke 7:29, where we read that the people “justified God”. Will you say that your Maker needs to be justified? Of course not. Thus, the rational understanding of this word in context DESTROYS the RC position, because it clearly shows that it CANNOT mean to “make righteous”—which Catholics spend their whole lives promoting—since no one, needless to say, can make God righteous! Rather, it means to ACCOUNT God as being right in His decrees and requirements. Likewise, we justified...we ACCOUNTED Abe as righteous when we saw what he had done. Wow. You really HAVE missed the gospel by thinking that works justify us! For absolutely nothing on earth could be more further from the truth, than that lie which Satan has duped you--and every world religion-- into accepting. You support your works/salvation idea by telling us that Paul was excluding only O.T. good works (such as loving one's neighbor) when he said we were justified apart from works of the law; but then you expect us to believe that all good works done post-Christ's resurrection (such as loving one's neighbor) now take on a salvific quality because they are done via G.G. (as if good works done via G.G. did not exist in the O.T. ?). No Christian disputes that a person may be “considered righteous”, as you submit. But to attach a salvific efficacy TOOO those works (which have nothing to say to the matter of our sin debt) and then imagine that those very works have the power to open the gates of heaven, is downright heretical. As mentioned previously, you can speak of G.G. till you’re blue in the face, But as a saving principle, it will fail you miserably on Judgment Day, just as Jesus said it would fail those self-proclaiming "Christians" in Matt 7:22. You need to remember that Paul did many good works in conjunction with G.G., and his assessment of them at the end of the day, was that they were nothing but dung in comparison to knowing the excellency of the Lord Jesus Christ. Finally, the story of the Pharisee in Luke 18 could not more succinctly destroy the Roman Catholic position. Here we have the Pharisee actually thanking God… (for what? Answer: For working through him by G.G.!) resulting in his being such a wonderful fellow. In like manner, Catholics are FOREVER thanking God for attaching His grace to their pious good works. That’s fine as far as it goes, but Jesus told this parable for those who were trusting in themselves that they were righteous (i.e., to thank God for His grace resulting in good works, leads to an inherent righteousness worthy of boasting). And THAT is the essence of RC belief and practice, and it is condemned right here by the Lord Jesus Christ in Luke 18. The RCC seriously errs by crashing through biblical parameters and driving over the cliff into the ocean of SALVIFIC works that have been mixed in with G.G. and the blood of Christ; a most deadly combination. Like the Pharisee, Catholics can be ever so good, kind, honest and generous–and all by G.G. But the text bluntly informs us in no uncertain terms that the Pharisee was…(watch it now!)…. NOT JUSTIFIED! Therefore, you may thank heaven all the day long for working through you by G.G.. The point is that the Pharisee was just as lost and headed for hell as every Catholic now is who is trusting in that same excuse to use when they face the judgement seat themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Glenn on Feb 6, 2015 13:24:07 GMT
Feel free to contribute yoir thoughts on this topic. This was your statement left out of the bubble at the beginning of my reply... "As to justification and my view not being explicit in Titus 3:5, even if this were the case, so what? You can’t prove the intricacies of the Trinity in any one text of Scripture but that doesn’t mean Scripture as a whole doesn’t teach them."
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Feb 6, 2015 16:30:13 GMT
You say
The Greek word for saved is used several ways in the New Testament. Sometimes, it is used for a past even, a present even and a future event. In this case it is refering to a past event, adv you later admitted. This is not inconsistent with initial justification since initial justification is a past event. So, one is perfectly able to interpret Titus as saying they were saved (i.e. initially justified) apart from works done in righteousness.
You say
Your argument is essentially that when Paul speaks about justification, he is speaking about justification before God, and when James speaks about justification, he is speaking about justification before man. The problem with this argument is that James uses the very passage Paul used in order to prove his point about justification not being by faith alone. So, your argument absolutely fails here when you read ALL of what James says. Also, if you assert that James was speaking about justification before men in Genesis 22 then the immediate problem is that when you read Genesis 22, God said through the angel:
In other words, the account of Genesis 22, which James uses to prove justification not by faith alone, is an event that justified him before God.
You say
Paul is making it clear in the immediate context that he is refering to a person who thinks he can be justified by keeping the Mosaic Law, such as circumcision, which is why he talks about circumcision in the immediate context. He is not saying justification has nothing to do with good works. Go back and read it carefully.
You say
Lets avoid making this about me and me going to hell and just stick to the arguments at hand. Also, Paul is clear that we cannot judge a person's soul in such a way since we cannto see the inner thoughts of man. This kind of judgement is reserved to God alone. We can judge actions and works, but not individual hearts and souls.
You say
Just because one word is used one way doesn't always mean it is used that way in all places. Context often determines usage. This is just basic exegesis.
You say
Again, let's avoid ad hominems and making this about me.
When Catholics say that the works of the Mosaic law didn't justify, that doesn't mean God's grace didn't apply in the Old Testament, it simply means that the Law was not able to provide people with the grace necessary to keep the law. In the New Covenant, God, through the Holy Spirit, gives us the ability to keep his moral law.
You say
I submit that as a Protestant, you have no way of determining what is heretical other than your mere opinion.
You say
The Pharisee was trusting in his own righteousness, not works done in grace. Catholics do not boast of our own righteousness. We don't even boast of works done in grace, for that matter. Our boast is in the Lord and what he does through us, not anything we do.
|
|
|
Post by Glenn on Feb 7, 2015 16:28:57 GMT
Agreed.
Not when we look at the catechism. It says that, "justification is conferred in baptism, the sacrament of faith" (#1992). But lo and behold, Jesus called baptism a work of righteousness in Matt 3:15! This means that no matter how you look at, the RC position falls flat. IOW, for a child, this would mean the faith of the parents would stand in proxy for this "work of righteousness called baptism", which means the child could NOT be justified "apart from works" as you submit. Following your logic to its conclusion, for an adult, it is the same: they could not be justified by faith alone apart from works ON THE SPOT, WHEREVER THEY ARE, as I contend, but would instead have to wait to be "initially justified" until it is convenient for the priest to fit the baptism ritual into his calendar.
Moreover, "initial justification" (henceforth, "I.J."") is never even mentioned in Scripture, and technically, not even in the catechism; it is a concept that is imported into Scripture on the flimsiest of implications just like every other doctrine your church peddles. In essence, the underlining concept of I.J. is to open the door of possibility to re-justification......so the laity will keep coming back to the church to receive grace via the sacraments and thus, keep the RCC in business. But as a matter of fact, when God chooses to call one of the elect to salvation, we know that He will never regret His decision; for, "the gifts and calling of God are irrecovable" (Rms 11:29). Still yet, you forget the legal aspect of justification. Words such as "law", "verdict", "judge", "impute", "credit", "declare", and "to charge", are all legal terms. Hence, with Christ as our "Advocate" and "Surety" (1 Jn 2:1 & Heb 7:22...two more legal terms) "who will bring any charge against God's elect?" Answer? No one (Rms 8:33). Yes, we may stumble and fall, but the charge of losing one's salvation at any given point is out of sync with the promise of His being able to keep us from falling away permanently (Jude 1:24). That being so, justification is a one-time deal.
My argument fails only to YOU, who takes James to mean that ultimately, salvific justification is by faith AND works. I deny that, which is what this debate is all about. The reality of the faith Abe had, upon which he was justified, was simply demonstrated in the offering of Isaac. Hence, "REAL FAITH...WORKS". Furthermore, if you are insinuating that justification in the sight of God is a phony distinction between the same thing in the sight of men, I would refer you to Romans 3:20 & Galatians 3:11: "that no man is justified by the law IN THE SIGHT OF GOD [initially or otherwise], it is evident, for, the just shall live by faith."
Surely, the Lord knew of the reality of Abe's faith decades earlier in Gen 15:6. "Now I know" is merely a mode of expression and certainly not an additional justification.
NO. Abe was not "justified again" in Gen 22. And I'm confident that the amount of Scripture scholars who hold your position would amount to less than the fingers on one hand.
You are attempting to form a foundation to buttress some sort of synergistic, grace-produced, works-salvation in James (#2016), but the big picture indicates that the writer is not arguing HOW a person is actually justified in the tribunal of heaven; for his sentiment is in the "Show me" aspect. He argues against a use of the word "faith" which amounts to nothing more than a deedless, empty and worthless claim... (e.g. how about all those Mexicans wearing rosaries I see all around town who are members of gangs always talking filth and up to no good?). However, this "dead faith" of which he speaks, has no parallel in the Pauline text. There, he speaks of justification "before God", while the context of James is, "Show me".
It does not follow that just because your PART A is true, this means your PART B is true. If you feel Paul imagines good works to be on the same pristine level as the shed blood of Christ, then produce your evidence specifically, rather than to tell me to "go back".
No one is trying to read your inner thoughts. While I will refrain from saying you are going to hell again, I am merely judging you by your WORDS and the dicta distributed by RC personnel, which is open for public inspection. This I have every right to do.
Again: I do not know your actions or your works: I only know your WORDS. And I am allowed to make a judgment on someone's soul. We read: But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
Ergo, there is biblical warrant for judging another person's theology as tantamount to "another gospel" per 2 Cor 11:4, and thus condemning it, per Galatians 1:8. If I happen to be wrong, I'll leave that to Him. But I certainly am on the right track when I attempt to, "destroy arguments and every LOFTY opinion, [Mr. Lofton!] raised against the knowledge of God..." (2 Cor 10:5).
It "SIMPLY" means? I doubt anyone for 2,015 years ever came to such a conclusion until you stated it just now. You are saying that G.G. was operative while the Old Testament law was in effect, but He... "simply"... didn't provide enough of it for anyone to keep it?
Nonsense.
Oh, "now" He does. But I deny this. And there you go again summoning into service that old stand-by, G.G., to vindicate your position! On the contrary, nothing in the Bible would lead one to believe that He designed the law to ultimately be kept "with His grace" post-Christ's resurrection, so that one could do "nowwww" rely on good works to merit heaven. This anemic, theological travesty is confirmed in CCC #1821, but it must be rejected. The RCC opines that we are obligated to keep the law (#16 & 2068) .....but I've already told you that God eliminated the greatest law system ever given to man as a means of justification in Acts 13:39 and elsewhere, so it is ludicrous to suppose He should replace it with some LESSER law, such as Roman Catholicism (#1114) to take its place!
"I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak forth the words of truth and soberness" (Acts 26:25).
The biblical record relates that "those whom God calls, He also justifies, and those He justifies, He also glorified" (Rms 8:30). Notice that God has glorified (past tense) all those whom He justifies. The past tense of "glorified" indicates that from the standpoint of Providence, the future work of glorification is as good as done. IOW, He will complete it as planned. As already indicated, a Catholic cannot be once and for all glorified in I.J., because the possibility is open to become de-gloried and de-justified throughout His life by sin, with the only hope being the "sacraments of the NEW law" (#1114) to re-glorify and re-justify him all over again. Why it's enough to make one's head spin. Romans 8:30 follows on the heels of 8:29 which says that the elect are called "according to His purpose". Again: there is purpose to this call, and as I told you before, He never fails to bring to fruition all those things He purposes to accomplish (Isa 46:10, Ps 135:6, Dan 4:34-35, Eph 1:11). Hence, when one is "initially justified", it is for keeps. Consequently, there is no such thing as "multiple justifications."
Trusting in "works done via G.G." is of course, the Roman Catholic gospel, which I insist is heretical. As for the Pharisee, he was in a religious location specifically "thanking God" for working thruuu him to get to the stage of being such an exemplary fellow. But you say
Catholics may not come right out and SAY it, but they are guilty of boasting nevertheless. Take David. After committing adultery and murder, it was the Lord's assessment that he was guilty but of both despising the word of Lord, as well as the Lord Himself! What??? When we contemplate such an accusation, based on the Psalms and David's devotion to his Maker, we know for a fact this man would never admit to hating either God OR His word. We would believe him. God does to. However, according to the courtroom in heaven, his actions amounted to the same feelings an atheist would hold, and so he had to suffer the consequences thereof.
Right here is your fatal flaw. What you fail to grasp is the life-saving truth that we are saved by what Christ has done FOR us, not by what the blessed Holy Spirit does IN us. While members of the RCC may never admit to boasting, the fact remains that their pious actions amount to that very thing! RC paperwork is littered with thanking God for this "inherent righteousness" which has been infuuuused into them, just as the Pharisee. The Pharisee was grateful for, "infusing strength into them with good works following" says Trent. But this gratefulness gor G.G. will not excuse RC foot soldiers in the day of Judgment--- simply because it is not the gospel! God has NOT ordained (as Trent continued) that we be saved, "by those very works which have been done in God, [which] fully satisfy the divine law and truly merit eternal life."
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Feb 9, 2015 16:17:15 GMT
You say
Jesus does not say his baptism was a work of righteousness in the sense that Paul used the terms. He says that his baptism was to fulfill all righteousness, and as dynamic equivalencies put it, it means his baptism was to fulfill what God required. So, this has nothing to do with Pauls conversation about the works of the Law and justification. Thus, your argument fails here.
The concept of initial justification is found in the Council of Trent where it speaks about degrees of justification. Also the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2010, explicitely distinguishes between initial justification and subsequent justification, as it says:
So, what I am saying is very consistent with the Catechism. As to whether it is consistent with Scripture, I have already demonstrated where Paul speaks about justification before God that is apart from the works of the Law, and then James who speaks about a justification before God that is not by faith alone, but is by works. Clearly, there are degrees of justification in the Bible, and hence initial justification is Biblical.
You quote Scripture that says:
Sure, as long as a person is in a state of grace, no one can bring a charge against God's elect. But if the person looses their justification by committing a moral sin, that is another matter.
You say
True. Initial justification cannot justify a person in the sight of God. No problem here. However, subsequent justification as per James is not by faith alone, but is by faith and works done in grace.
You say
|
|
|
Post by michael lofton on Feb 9, 2015 16:19:01 GMT
As far as whether the moral law can not be fulfilled by us through the Spirit, what do you say about Romasn 8:4
"in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."
I'll respond to the rest later. I have to get back to work for the moment.
|
|
|
Post by michael lofton on Feb 9, 2015 17:30:22 GMT
According to you the Catholic gospel is heretical but that doesn't mean anything to me because that is merely your opinion as to what Scripture teaches about the Gospel compared to your understanding of catholicism. You can't even appeal to Scripture legitimately anyway since you have to have a magisterium to determine what is canonical. So again I ask, how do you determine what is heretical. If you say scripture then my next question is how you know which books belong in the canon and whose interpretation of those books are correct?
The pharisee wasn't trusting in works done by God's grace. The text nowhere says that so you are reading into it. In fact we know the Jews like this believed in works apart from grace which is why Paul had to rebuke the judaizers in romans.
Romans 8:4 is clear that the Holy Spirit fulfills the law through us. Yes Jesus fulfilled the law Himself but he also sends us the Holy Spirit to participate in his fulfillment of the moral law.
|
|
|
Post by michael lofton on Feb 9, 2015 17:34:54 GMT
Also your view of justification (double imputation) can't be found among the church fathers. Did they loose the gospel or is your view simply novel?
As to calvinism, I am a former calvinist so we can get into that on a thread on calvinism if you would like.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Feb 9, 2015 22:33:35 GMT
Michael--you wrote about Trent asserting that "we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life." Where in Scripture does it say this kind of thing?
|
|
|
Post by michael lofton on Feb 10, 2015 18:16:26 GMT
Jay
I don't believe everything about the faith is explicitly in Scripture but here is something to consider about meriting graces for others.
James 5:16
"The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective."
|
|
|
Post by Glenn on Feb 11, 2015 14:08:51 GMT
Mr. Lofton says
Yes he did.
But of course doing good works is most definitely the fulfillment of what God requires! We are, "his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which ....[having been] ordained that whoever should be saved by grace should walk in." It is a universally accepted that "being saved by grace" is an act of God's unmerited favor. Catholics, on the other hand, read that as God supplying the "power bar" of grace, which then jumpstarts their metabolism to do good works which consequently merit heaven (#1821). I submit the difference is between heaven and hell. Having said that, the works spoken of by Paul does not eliminate them out of the category of those very works of righteousness we may NOT count on to usher in our salvation, per Titus 3:5 and every where else Paul speaks of being saved apart from works. Works do not have anything to say to the issue of our sin debt, therefore to be saved APART from works means we are saved by faith alone. There are no other options. Moreover, there were good moral works contained in the law, Mr. Lofton, so to insinuate that Paul always means "saved apart from works of the ceremonial law", is out of order.
What you are doing in practice, as I have repeatedly said, is attaching a salvific efficacy to your good deeds, which every religion on earth preaches without exception--- except that gospel preached by true Christians.
I understand you must do everything you can to manipulate the clear words of Jesus in your favor, but it will never do because the record is clear. Paul eliminates baptism...and by extension, RC justification along with it, not only by denying works in the economy of salvation (and that means, ANY works) but by his admitting that, "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (1 Cor 1:17), thus putting the "gospel" and "baptism" in opposition to each other. It then logically follows that baptism is not part of the gospel; neither was any man EVER justified by it in His sight regardless of what the catechism says by foolishly pinning their hopes on it (#1257).
Previously, I submitted "initial" justification was not mentioned in the catechism. Looks like I missed that. But that only means you proved me wrong. It does not mean you have proved that the word of God supports the concept of I.J. or J itself.
And ***I*** have already addressed these concerns in one form or another, and find your arguments less than convincing.
I have already addressed this as well by telling you that God does not go out of His way to justify a person, only to allow them to fall away permanently, which is what you are implying. When He makes that call, He never "repents" in making a decision to save someone... "For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance" (Rms 11:29).
No where in that epistle is it ever advocated that works "done in G.G." are the means of salvation! Faith is the root. Works are the fruit.
While you admit Jesus fulfilled the law, you omit to say that He fulfilled the law in our room and stead, and that's because you simply don't believe it. A pity. The law demands perfect obedience as the only way to life and a curse to those who violate it (Lev 18:5, Rms 10:5, Gal 3:10-13). Christ met the demands of the law in both respects on our behalf. Romans 5:10 says we are saved by both His life and death. How then does one partake of the LIFE benefits of Christ? Answer? It is by God imputing His righteousness in fulfilling the law to ungodly sinners, just as the sins of the people were imputed to the sacrifices of old.
"And Aaron shall lay both hands upon the head of the live goat, and shall confess all [their] iniquities....putting them upon the head of the goat." (Lev 16:21-23).
There is no other way, other than by imputation, that this was accomplished, and it was likewise with Christ, unto whom the Lord imputed our sins, "laying on Him the iniquity of us all." (Isa 53:6). If you say the Lord did NOT impute our sins to Christ, then kindly tell us HOW and by what means, were our iniquities "LAID" on Him. You sir, are trusting in a righteousness that will not be perfected this side of heaven. Paul lamented over his imperfection (Phil 3:12), and therefore wanted to be found, "NOT having a righteousness of my own" (Phil 3:8-9). Rather, you should trust in the perfect righteousness "now revealed from heaven"...(i.e., outside of yourself, per Rms 3:21) which is served to you on a silver platter, as a gift of righteousness, take it or leave it (Rms 5:17). When we are "in Christ" (mentioned over 25 times in the N.T.), God views us as if we ourselves had fulfilled the law perfectly, in its precept and penalty. Hence, Jesus has been made unto us..."righteousness" (1 Cor 1:30) and may therefore be called, "The Lord our righteousness" (Jer 23:6). Since His righteousness is synonymous with His obedience; we must ground our hope in "the obedience of the One" (Rms 5:19). Everything in Scripture points us to look outwardly to what Christ has done FOR us, and not inwardly, to what the Holy Spirit does IN us; for you must remember, the H.S. did not die for our sins, and "it is He who will testify of Me." Justification, initial or final, is by faith alone in a righteousness NOT our own, as Paul explicitly states above. Moses proves it (John 3:14). When commanding the people to simply "LOOK" upon the brazen serpent to be healed from being bitten, the people must have thought, "how can something so completely outside of ourselves, be the antidote to the poison that resides within us?" Nevertheless, it was true. To merely "look", did indeed heal them. Jesus goes so far as to use the image of "looking" to convey this very thought: "Everyone who sees (looks at) the Son and believes in Him has [present tense] eternal life" (Jn 6:40, Isa 45:22). In 2 Cor 5:21, Paul means us to understand that the believer "might become the righteousness of God in Him [Jesus]", in the same way as Christ was "made" sin on our behalf. How was Christ "made (or constituted) sin"? Answer: By imputation. While the term "impute" may be formally absent here, it is indeed present materially and substantially, as God has given us a brain to connect the dots. Catholicism suggests that the righteousness of Christ is INFUSED into us: "receiving justice within us", per Trent. But this wreaks havoc with the analogy Paul is making. It would be out of the question to say that the Lord Jesus was made sin by an infuuuusion of sin into His being. That being so, you must take that truth to its logical conclusion so the parallel is complete. The truth is, that though sin was imputed TO Christ, it was not IN or infused into Him. Likewise, though the righteousness of Christ is imputed TO the believer, it is not IN or of ourselves. The Lord Jesus did not have anything whatsoever to do in participating in our sins; and neither did we have anything whatsoever to do with participating in His righteousness. Ergo, as the sins condemning the elect were outside of the Savior, so the justifying righteousness "from God" (Rms 3:21) is outside the believer as well. Since the entirety of Christ's work is subsumed under the phrase, "one act of righteousness" in Rms 5:18, which we are told "leads to justification and life for all men", it must be imputed to our account. For it would be outrageous to suppose the perfect righteousness of Christ is infuuused into us. If that were so, we would all be sinless.
The ramifications of imputation are also present in Romans 5:12-14, where Paul makes the connection between the sin of Adam and the spread of death. All men die because of Adam's sin, even those who did not have anything to do with it. How is this so? The answer is that Adam's sin was imputed to his progeny (whether we like it or not) and for this reason all men die because the wages of sin is death. The apostle then proceeds to make the imputation-connection to Christ in vs. 19; "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience, many will be made righteous." Being "made" sinners does not mean they were actually made inherently sinful--anymore than we will be "made" inherently righteous this side of heaven worthy of a heavenly crown. Being "made" thus, was and is, by imputation.
No one is arguing that the Holy Spirit helps us in fulfilling the moral law, but Catholicism puts an obligation to keep the commandments as a means to heaven, (#16 & 2068), and this is pure legalism. As you know, you will die not having fulfilled the law perfectly (Phil 3:12). But an imperfect righteousness simply will not stand up at the Judgment Seat. Here on earth, we do not "walk" according to the flesh---yes; but this "walking" merely means a lifestyle, or the general tenor of a person towards righteousness. But perfection? Forget it. True Christians hope in that "garment of salvation, the robe of righteousness" that will be furnished to us by the Host (Isaiah 61:10), just as it was the responsibility of the host to provide the wedding garments FOR his guests in days gone by. Unfortunately, you are hoping to be a wedding crasher, hoping to get in to the marriage supper of the Lamb wearing your own tattered threads with pocketfuls of good works done in G.G. But Matthew 22 says that man was thrown out.
Furthermore, your goose has already been cooked because if you've failed in even one aspect of the law, you're guilty of it all (Jms 2:10). My point is that no amount of good deeds mixed in with G.G. will ever satisfy divine justice. Instead of pinpointedly trusting in what Christ as done FOR them via His "unspeakable service", they are mixing it all up with THEIR performance, via G.G., and the results are horrific....
1) Being a member of the Catholic Church is N.F.S. (necessary for salvation, per V-1 & 2) 2) Penance is N.F.S. --- (CCC #1446) 3) Reliance on Mary to bring you the gifts of eternal salvation is N.F.S. --- (CCC #969) 4) Being in subjection to the Pope is N.F.S. --- (V-1) 5) Human suffering is N.F.S. --- ("We must suffer for our sins...it is a matter of justice" ... Catholicism & Fundamentalism, p. 194) 6) Sorrow and Misery are N.F.S. --- "Sins must be expiated through the sorrows and misery and trials of life" (V-2) 7) The sacraments are N.F.S. --- (Trent, session 7). 8) Indulgences are N.F.S. --- "The church commands the use of indulgences...for the task of winning salvation" (V-2) 9) Service & Witness are N.F.S. --- (CCC #1816) 10) Purgatory is N.F.S. --- (sins are "atoned" for in that divine waiting room, per the Catholic Encyclopedia). 11) Punishments are N.F.S. --- We can, "make satisfaction to God the Father, not only by punishments voluntarily undertaken by ourselves to atone for sins, or by those imposed by the judgment of the priest accordinag to the measure of our offense, but also, and this is the greatest proof of love, by the temporal afflictions imposed by God and borne patiently by us." 12) "Sacramental confession of sins is ordained by God and is necessary for salvation" --- (Ott, "Fundamentals of C Dogma", p. 431). 13) Good works are N.F.S. --- "We are justified by Christ...and by good works." (Catholic Encyclopedia, under "Justification", as well as the Council of Trent). 14) Right conduct is N.F.S. --- (CCC #16).
If the above requirements do not qualify for Satan's masterpiece in muddying the waters of the pure and clear streams of the gospel, I don't know what does. All of the above is nothing less than seeking to be justified by the law, which Paul says is equivalent to falling from grace (Gal 5:3-4)....which is why all your talk of G.G. will get you no where on that final day. Paul would not stand for these disgraceful addentums to the gospel, "no not for an hour" (Gal 2:5). Catholicism has added far more: thus it is irrefutable that the apostle would condemn your magisterium in like manner as he condemned those who were demanding, "Except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1).
What was the Pharisee "thanking God" for, then?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Feb 12, 2015 16:04:28 GMT
I think the crux of your argument is that:
It is a universally accepted that "being saved by grace" is an act of God's unmerited favor.
We would agree it is unmerited, as there is a difference between strict, congruent and condign merit. When Scripture condemns merit, it is refering to strict merit, not congruent or condign merit.
What was the Pharisee thanking God for? It wasn't a genuine thanking God for anything, and St. Gregory backs me up on that in his commentary on Job, where he states the Pharisee was trusting in his own works apart from God (strict merit).
|
|
|
Post by Glenn on Feb 13, 2015 14:16:24 GMT
Mr. Lofton says... Yes. Apart from works. And the crux of your argument is that man will be rewarded with eternal life by his works that could not have come about apart from grace. These are two diametrically opposed gospels and both cannot be true. The knack Catholics have for reading into the Scriptures their own preconceived biases is breathtaking. Scripture NO WHERE holds such a high view of works; neither does any writer wish that we polish up our works by reminding us that because they are always done in G.G., ipso facto, heaven is assured because of their "merit". Not on your life. The Text does not rely on such abstract philosophical contortions to try to prove that, after all, everything is really of grace. That appears to be your job. Paul, on the other hand, was blunt and to the point: "And if [it is] by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise, grace is no more grace." Now wasn't that simple? Well of course you must say that, but frankly, your words are like fingernails scratching on a chalkboard because it rings false in view of all the other papal dicta which surrounds it. Hence, you may claim G.G. is unmerited favor all you like, and it might sound nice to the untrained ear, but to mine, it presents an unresolved paradox. Your theology speaks of merit resulting from works, rooted in grace. However, Scripture will not allow there to be such a thing as a "gracious merit". The two concepts are polar opposites; thus, you are betting your salvation on an oxymoronic hermeneutic. Good luck. I wonder if you realize that everything you say amounts to making the Scriptures null and void. I would caution you to keep in mind that Jesus thinks it is entirely possible for the Text to stand on its own, and those that don't think so, "greatly err, not knowing it or the power of God." He did not say that the Holy Spirit speaks with cottonballs in His mouth, leaving what He REALLY meant to say, to people like you. You've already stated on this thread (on 2-10), that, "I don't believe everything about the faith is explicitly in Scripture."Consequently, your entire life must consist of trying to conform your extra-biblical data into the Text at any and all costs. I certainly don't envy you. As to the different "levels" of merit, suffice to say that you are insisting that God has obligated Himself to reward condign meritorious works with salvation, otherwise He would be in violation of His own justice. But again: this is a false gospel! And while I do understand that Catholics will argue that "merit" does not mean to "earn grace", it izzzz in fact merit which is rewarded with grace in the Roman system, per Trent: they, "truly merit an increase of grace [and thus] eternal life."I find this downright disingenuous, if not outrightly dishonest. At the end of the day, this "increase in grace" you supposedly get, is putting the fruit produced by the graciousness of God as the cause of that graciousness. NO. This is nothing but a vicious circle which robs God of His glory, eclipses Christ's mighty atonement, and amounts to a subtle, yet deadly attack upon the free gift of G.G. If it is a salvation based on works that come from grace, it is not based on grace---but on the Christian's works that come from grace. You err in failing to realize that we are saved by faith by a righteousness from God (Rms 3:21, Phil 3:9). This is something that is entirely objective; i.e., outside of man, and thus Luther was correct to refer to this as an "alien righteousness". In my opinion, you really do hit rock bottom when it gets to the point of calling Jesus a liar. Oh yes you are, so don't bother denying it. Now Jesus said the Pharisee was thanking God, with no hint of not being genuine, and that's the end of it. So my objection stands; namely, that the Pharisee is on the same level of every Catholic on this earth who has the mindset to thank God for doing such great and mighty things thruuu them, expecting to be justified. But the Pharisee was mistaken. And so are millions of his "cousins". As if that story wasn't enough, lest we forget those self-proclaiming Christians in Matt 7:22.... they also got the boot after saying they had done many wonderful works in His name. Did you ever stop to think what religious group this consists of? Well....you can eliminate Protestants because we have no intention to parade our good works before Him, demanding the key to heaven's gate. Whose left? Mormons, J.W.'s, Christian Scientists certainly give lip service to Christ and will be there tooting their own horns for sure. But to suppose that Catholics will be absent from this group, would be unbelievable considering all that has been presented so far. If you would like a peek into the future of what faces you and your friends, here it is, in 3 condensed, glorious minutes.... www.godtube.com/watch/?v=7PK7YWNX Excuse me, but good 'ol Greg rejected the book of Maccabees as inspired in that same commentary on Job (Book 19, chapter 34). He says that it is not out of order to quote for the church’s edification, the books of the Apocrypha, as long as it's understood that they are not canonical. He then immediately retells the story from 1 Macc. 6:42-47....which then means that if Trent is correct in anathematizing all who reject the Apocrypha, then they have retroactively anathematized one of their very own. Ergo, if papal dicta was not bad enough as is, your reference to an apostate pope to prove your case does not help matters in the least. Have you ever stopped to consider that on the outside chance that I'm wrong, I have nothing to lose? After all, it would be impossible to imagine that on Judgment Day I hear these words: "Glenn, because you did not attach a salvific efficacy to all your good works, and instead had the nerve to trust soley in ME to save you, I now must send you to hell."Even the RCC keeps harping on the fact that "dumbos" like me are eligible for heaven (albeit, given a dunce cap rather than a crown). YOU, on the other hand, are at more risk and have everything to lose if you're wrong, because it is extremely likely that God will not tolerate those who have spent their lives attaching a salvific efficacy to their good works, regardless of how loud they shout G.G. But by then, it will be too late.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Feb 13, 2015 16:36:28 GMT
You say Paul, on the other hand, was blunt and to the point: "And if [it is] by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise, grace is no more grace." When Paul says this he is talking about stric merit, which Catholics condemn as is evident by the canons on justification in the Council of Trent. Papal documents back up what I am saying. When Scripture condemnes merit, it is strict merit. Scripture nowhere condemns condign or congruent merit, but in fact, supports condign and congruent merit. See here for more on merit before commenting further upon it, since you don't appear to be well informed of the Catholic doctrine of merit www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/11/the-doctrine-of-merit-feingold-calvin-and-the-church-fathers/ Also check out this article on imputation vs. infusion, it may help you to understand the issues better: www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/05/imputation-and-infusion-a-reply-to-r-c-sproul-jr/As to your understanding of St. Gregory, he actually quoted the deuterocanonicals as Scripture so when he referred to them as non canonical, he was speaking about them being outside of the canon of what is to be read during the liturgy, now what is outside of God's inspiration. This shows me you haven't studied the issue of the canon much. You say I called Jesus a liar. I have done no such thing and at this point I am really tired of you slandering me and insulting me so either stop slandering me or I won't be responding any further. I've been very patient with you but this is getting ridiculous. If you can't discuss the issues like an adult, then I do not wish to continue this conversation.
|
|