Christian Forums

Hi Everyone,

At the heart of the Catholic and Protestant divide is how each understand justification or salvation.

So I would like both sides to present how they understand justification.

GROUND RULES.

To enable intelligent discussion, I would like those joining this discussion to please ensure that your replies are well reasoned and well thought out.

Before you reply, please understand the post you are replying to and keep your response directed at the post. No snide remarks at doctrines that are not part of the discussion.

It is not sufficient to just give Biblical references. If you are going to give Biblical citations, you must also explain why it is relevant to the discussion and how it is supposed to address the post you are responding to.

Do not make assumptions as to what the poster has written. If it is not written, the poster has not said it. Do no attack imaginary posts.

Do not make sly remarks.  Posts that I regard as baiting will be reported to the moderator.

FIRST POST

So for the first salvo.

I think the reason we have different ideas about justification is due to our different understanding of sin and the state of man after the fall.  

From what I have read, Protestants believe that justification is forensic, i.e. God declares one just regardless of the state of one's soul.  

If you are a Protestant, how do you understand Justification and Sanctification?

I think I will limit it to that and just see where the discussion goes.

Peace and All Good

Teresa

I think, quite frankly, that we get a bit too wrapped up in finite discussions of terms. Justification is simply the idea that you are now OK with God.

Your assumptions about the difference between Catholics and Protestants is not accurate, but for the moment, let's assume it is.

I am a Protestant, but not Calvinist. Nor, as you have noticed on other threads, do I accept the notion of Augustinian original sin. So, I start from a slightly different perspective than most "high church" Protestants (who are largely Catholics who don't really want to be told what to do).

I prefer to speak of salvation not as some legal point in time called justification, but as having God open the door, and us returning to Him. Is there a point where we actually cross the threshold? I suspect, but I'm not at all sure that we are fully aware of when that might be. There are some normative behaviors, but normative allows for exceptions.

Salvation  is about one's willingness to live as God has called us to live, not a set of "steps" so much.

Salvation cannot be separated from the condition of one's soul, if by that we mean the character of one's desire to live as God lives (owning God's will as ours).

We are justified (accepted as returned by God) when we determine to live as He has called us to live. In our acknowledgement that He is right, we respond by submitting to His instruction and we worship Him as God.

Justification and sanctification are precise legal terms which we like to parse. They are not as separable as we think they are. One is not "justified" and then moves on to "sanctified." If we are living in God, we are both at the same time justified and sanctified.

As long as we remain in God, we remain justified and sanctified.

But that remaining in God is our call.

Quote from: HRoberson on Sat Jun 30, 2012 - 12:21:23
I think, quite frankly, that we get a bit too wrapped up in finite discussions of terms. Justification is simply the idea that you are now OK with God.

Your assumptions about the difference between Catholics and Protestants is not accurate, but for the moment, let's assume it is.

I am a Protestant, but not Calvinist. Nor, as you have noticed on other threads, do I accept the notion of Augustinian original sin. So, I start from a slightly different perspective than most "high church" Protestants (who are largely Catholics who don't really want to be told what to do).

I prefer to speak of salvation not as some legal point in time called justification, but as having God open the door, and us returning to Him. Is there a point where we actually cross the threshold? I suspect, but I'm not at all sure that we are fully aware of when that might be. There are some normative behaviors, but normative allows for exceptions.

Salvation  is about one's willingness to live as God has called us to live, not a set of "steps" so much.

Salvation cannot be separated from the condition of one's soul, if by that we mean the character of one's desire to live as God lives (owning God's will as ours).

We are justified (accepted as returned by God) when we determine to live as He has called us to live. In our acknowledgement that He is right, we respond by submitting to His instruction and we worship Him as God.

Justification and sanctification are precise legal terms which we like to parse. They are not as separable as we think they are. One is not "justified" and then moves on to "sanctified." If we are living in God, we are both at the same time justified and sanctified.

As long as we remain in God, we remain justified and sanctified.

But that remaining in God is our call.

Thanks for you response HR.

I think your idea of justification and sanctification is much closer to the Catholic view than the Protestant view.

It was not until the reformation that we see this split between justification and sanctification.  There was no such divide prior to the reformation.

I will think a bit more about what you have written and see how I can relate this to the Cathollic view.

Peace and All Good

Teresa

Hi.

What does justification means relative to the Bible? In the New testament (e.g. in Romans 4:25), the Greek word "Dikaiosis" is translated as "justification" which means, to be declared to be righteous or just. It is not the act of MAKING someone righteous, but the act of DECLARING one righteous.

Romans 4:18-25
18 Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, "So shall your offspring be.

Quote from: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 01, 2012 - 06:23:37
Hi.

What does justification means relative to the Bible? In the New testament (e.g. in Romans 4:25), the Greek word "Dikaiosis" is translated as "justification" which means, to be declared to be righteous or just. It is not the act of MAKING someone righteous, but the act of DECLARING one righteous.

Romans 4:18-25
18 Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, "So shall your offspring be.

Quote from: Teresa on Sun Jul 01, 2012 - 06:34:23

Quote from: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 01, 2012 - 06:23:37
Hi.

What does justification means relative to the Bible? In the New testament (e.g. in Romans 4:25), the Greek word "Dikaiosis" is translated as "justification" which means, to be declared to be righteous or just. It is not the act of MAKING someone righteous, but the act of DECLARING one righteous.

Romans 4:18-25
18 Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, "So shall your offspring be.

Hi all

It is my understanding that Catholicism sees the fruit of the Spirit as the "righteousness of God" that justifies us. Thus the process...but this is not what the Bible means when it speaks of the righteousness of God that justifies. It was His righteousness demonstrated, for Jesus is just, and the justifier for all who believe. I believe that scripture is clear in this matter in many ways, one of them being the way it often pitts our "efforts", or works, against our Fathers grace by faith (Romans 10:1-4 to name one).

While it is true that a living faith manifests itself with good works, I would call that a necessary evidence of salvation (our claims before men, and belief of being justified...James 2), but not a merit for justification by any means. Evidence vs. merit. That's the difference between the correct Biblical understanding, and Catholicism in my opinion. The scripture in question is always warning about self deception (You can tell a tree by it's fruit--evidence), not falling short of earning our justification, which is impossible for man to do. Understanding the nature of God, His perfect attributes, goes a long way towards understanding this. The Law, like Him, require perfect obedience. What is impossible for man is possible for God...I have not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it...every sin is a transgression of the Law...if we transgressed the Law at one point, we have transgressed it at every point.  

It's the motive that separates legalism from grace. If a person trusts in their own works for justification, even in part, they are under the Law and will be found guilty by the perfect standards of the Law (you who want to be under the Law, are you not aware of what the Law says?...therefore, no man can be justified by the Law, for by the Law comes the knowledge of sin.)

The truth is, as Macarthur has said, I'm no more righteous today than I was the first day that I believed, as far as justification is concerned.

The term "justification" is just a legal term, with regards to our salvation. The term "sanctification", can have a legal tone, sometimes called our "positional sanctification". And the distinction is made with the more practical side of it (evidence of salvation) by using the term "progressive sanctification". This is why sometimes we can see  scripture speaking of sanctification as already finished, or past tense (legality), in some places, while in other places it speaks of sanctification as something ongoing (manifestation, evidence). The context usually helps too.

D

Quote from: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 01, 2012 - 08:04:47
In connection with your question regarding Abraham, my answer is yes. God knows the heart of man. With that, it was not necessary that Abraham should actually go and sacrifice Isaac as the Lord commanded him to do. But nonetheless, he let Abraham actually go through the motions, so we could, from Abraham's act, see that his Faith in God is true. It is for Abraham and our sake that this happened and not for God. It is not that because of Abraham's actual doing that God credited his faith to him as righteousness. In fact, it was his faith that was credited as righteousness and not what he has done. I would say that Abraham's deed was a product of his Faith and a proof of the genuineness of his faith in God rather than it being a must and reason to merit   righteousness.

So you are basically saying that even had Abraham not gone ahead and sacrificed Isaac, Abraham still would have had faith?

But if Abraham had not sacrificed Isaac, is that not proof that He did not have faith?  So there was no faith that could have been declared as his righteousness if he had not sacrficied Isaac.

QuoteWith regards to your questions"....can one be declared just without being sanctified? If this is so, is sanctification necessary to be saved?", my answer is Yes and No. Now let me elaborate my answer. When one is justified (i.e. by the grace of God and through Faith in Jesus Christ), he is at the same time sanctified or being sanctified. Sanctification is the process by which we are being made holy unto perfection, just as our Lord Jesus is Holy, and not in anyway a requirement so as to merit salvation. It is God who sanctifies us in the same way as He is the one who justifies us.  

I have another question regarding this but I would just like to ask this first: In your understanding, when is a person justified?  Is he justified the moment He believes in Jesus Christ?

Peace and All Good

Teresa

Quote from: Dave... on Sun Jul 01, 2012 - 20:30:52
Hi all

It is my understanding that Catholicism sees the fruit of the Spirit as the "righteousness of God" that justifies us. Thus the process...but this is not what the Bible means when it speaks of the righteousness of God that justifies. It was His righteousness demonstrated, for Jesus is just, and the justifier for all who believe. I believe that scripture is clear in this matter in many ways, one of them being the way it often pitts our "efforts", or works, against our Fathers grace by faith (Romans 10:1-4 to name one).

That is not quite correct.

In the Catholic understanding there is no divide between faith and works when it comes to salvation.  We affirm that we are saved by grace.  But grace comes both in the form of faith and good works. Good works is not opposed to faith as they both come from God.

The Catholic understanding is also more correct when we look at the nature of sin.  Since we are being saved from sin, then our understanding of sin bears on how we understand salvation.

QuoteWhile it is true that a living faith manifests itself with good works, I would call that a necessary evidence of salvation (our claims before men, and belief of being justified...James 2), but not a merit for justification by any means.  

The Catholic Church does not see good works as a way of meriting salvatoin.

Salvation is essentially Theosis - our transformation into the image of Christ.

Just as faith is transformative, so also good works.  Both our transformative and thus helps in our transformation.

We cannot say that good works is a manifestation of living faith because we know that many people do good works but they do not have faith in Christ.
However, true faith in Christ brings about a perfection of our works and thus our own perfection.

I mentioned earlier that we need to get a good understanding of sin so that we can understand redemption better.

Sin is not just something that we do in our bodies. Sin has a real ontological effect in the soul.  When we steal, we become a thief.  When we commit adultery, we become adulterers. When we kill someone, we become a murderer.

Sin changes us in the depth of our being. Therefore, grace needs to transform us in the very depths of our being as well. Our inmost being must be conformed to Christ where before it was conformed to the evil one.

Faith alone will not effect this transformation - only a life lived in obedience to God will complete that transformation.
Faith is important because through faith, we see the clear path and avail of the graces necessary to live a life of obedience.
At every instance, at every choice, we must choose God - we must say yes to God.

QuoteEvidence vs. merit. That's the difference between the correct Biblical understanding, and Catholicism in my opinion.

That is not quite correct.

It all hinges on how you understand the beginnings of faith.

If you understand faith as something that you have conjured up by yourself (something  you attained by your own effort) then you are also saying that you claimig salvation because of merit. You have faith and thus God has to save you. That smacks of the merit system as well.

But if a person does good works but does not consider her good works her own but something that God has enabled her to do, then that is not a case of merit. Rather it is a recognition that God is working in her soul so that she can obey in humility, all that God commands.

QuoteThe scripture in question is always warning about self deception (You can tell a tree by it's fruit--evidence), not falling short of earning our justification, which is impossible for man to do.

Therefore if one claims to have faith but there is no fruit, then that faith is uselss.  If it is the fruit that matters, then it is good works that matters because as you have indicated - good works is the fruit of faith.

QuoteUnderstanding the nature of God, His perfect attributes, goes a long way towards understanding this. The Law, like Him, require perfect obedience. What is impossible for man is possible for God...I have not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it...every sin is a transgression of the Law...if we transgressed the Law at one point, we have transgressed it at every point.  

Exactly!  If what is required is obedience, then therefore, what is required is good works because that is what good works is about - obedience to everything that God commands.

QuoteIt's the motive that separates legalism from grace. If a person trusts in their own works for justification, even in part, they are under the Law and will be found guilty by the perfect standards of the Law (you who want to be under the Law, are you not aware of what the Law says?...therefore, no man can be justified by the Law, for by the Law comes the knowledge of sin.)

And without the knowledge of sin, how can we know that we need to repent and thus be saved.

Peace and All Good

Teresa

That term 'protestant'? I thought it was long outdated. It means someone who protests. Who accepts that designation? I thought 'pentecostal' has since replaced it.

As for this post, I am catholic. My idea about justification is that I have a role to play and God has a role to play to get me right with him. My role includes accepting that there is God and that he owns me (faith) and living in a way that shows this is true (christian life or morals) while trusting in the grace of Christ above all else.

Quote from: Teresa on Mon Jul 02, 2012 - 08:02:24

Quote from: Dave... on Sun Jul 01, 2012 - 20:30:52
Hi all

It is my understanding that Catholicism sees the fruit of the Spirit as the "righteousness of God" that justifies us. Thus the process...but this is not what the Bible means when it speaks of the righteousness of God that justifies. It was His righteousness demonstrated, for Jesus is just, and the justifier for all who believe. I believe that scripture is clear in this matter in many ways, one of them being the way it often pitts our "efforts", or works, against our Fathers grace by faith (Romans 10:1-4 to name one).

That is not quite correct.

In the Catholic understanding there is no divide between faith and works when it comes to salvation.  We affirm that we are saved by grace.  But grace comes both in the form of faith and good works. Good works is not opposed to faith as they both come from God.

Hi Teresa.

This is one of the reasons why Catholicism will not say 'by grace alone, thru faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone', right? Because Catholicism uses 'faith' as a title word for faith and works. Catholicism believes in a beginning and and end justification. Like I said, while a true faith is evidenced by good works, we should be careful not to put the cart before the horse here. The works are an evidence, a fruit, of one who is already justified. One cannot merit his own salvation as it is impossible for man, for none are righteous, and all have fallen short of the glory of God. To look to our own works for justification is to reject the very thing that legally justifies us before God, the righteousness of God, For Jesus is the end of the Law for righteousness for all who believe. Romans 10:1-4 again.  

QuoteThe Catholic understanding is also more correct when we look at the nature of sin.  Since we are being saved from sin, then our understanding of sin bears on how we understand salvation.

Again, evidence. Man is conformed to Christ likeness, or as Paul calls it, being perfected by the Spirit, as a result of him being in Christ, and already justified.

QuoteWe cannot say that good works is a manifestation of living faith because we know that many people do good works but they do not have faith in Christ.

God calls anything done by the flesh filthy rags. So while there may be things that superficially look good, under the surface, somewhere down there, there is sin motivating at it's foundation. If one has the correct understanding our our sin nature, then he knows that apart from Christ, we can do nothing [good], for God alone is good.  

QuoteExactly!  If what is required is obedience, then therefore, what is required is good works because that is what good works is about - obedience to everything that God commands.

What is required is perfect obedience, impossible for us, but possible for God. That;s why we trust in the Just, and the justifier of all who believe.  

Dave

18:9  And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

18:10  Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

18:11  The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

18:12  I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

18:13  And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

18:14  I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Quote from: Teresa on Mon Jul 02, 2012 - 07:36:56

Quote from: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 01, 2012 - 08:04:47
In connection with your question regarding Abraham, my answer is yes. God knows the heart of man. With that, it was not necessary that Abraham should actually go and sacrifice Isaac as the Lord commanded him to do. But nonetheless, he let Abraham actually go through the motions, so we could, from Abraham's act, see that his Faith in God is true. It is for Abraham and our sake that this happened and not for God. It is not that because of Abraham's actual doing that God credited his faith to him as righteousness. In fact, it was his faith that was credited as righteousness and not what he has done. I would say that Abraham's deed was a product of his Faith and a proof of the genuineness of his faith in God rather than it being a must and reason to merit   righteousness.

So you are basically saying that even had Abraham not gone ahead and sacrificed Isaac, Abraham still would have had faith?

But if Abraham had not sacrificed Isaac, is that not proof that He did not have faith?  So there was no faith that could have been declared as his righteousness if he had not sacrficied Isaac.

What I was trying to point out is that, Abraham's act was not to be taken as what merits the righteousness credited by God to him. It was because of

his faith that righteousness was credited to him. All deeds or acts of obedience are a product of one's faith in Christ, as in this case where Abraham acted

according to the Faith he have in God and not because of his own desire or want. For God, it was not necessary that Abraham should actually go and

sacrifice Isaac, for God knows the heart of man. But man is not like God, that is why visible acts of faith such as that of Abraham is necessary for us to

somehow tell if a person indeed has faith or so we could somehow tell what kind of faith he has.


You see, faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see (Heb. 11:1). Every man who has such confidence on something

has faith in such. So, having said that, even if Abraham had not acted ahead, he still have faith. The question would properly then be "What kind of faith

then would we think Abraham had towards God?".  And to answer this question, not only that of Abraham but that of anyone, we look for things or deeds

where we can somehow form our opinion regarding one's faith. Opinion, in the sense that we could not truly ascertain one's faith, for faith is an inner thing,

and of the heart. But God could, even without the visible works. That is why, we need to profess our Faith, to the point of acting it out, so that man, who

can't see the inner things in a man, may be able to somehow understand and see that Faith, for their sake and ours. That by the words we profess and the

deeds we do, they will see the Glory of Jesus Christ and God, which may lead them to believe as well.  I hope my point is clear.

Quote

QuoteWith regards to your questions"....can one be declared just without being sanctified? If this is so, is sanctification necessary to be saved?", my answer is Yes and No. Now let me elaborate my answer. When one is justified (i.e. by the grace of God and through Faith in Jesus Christ), he is at the same time sanctified or being sanctified. Sanctification is the process by which we are being made holy unto perfection, just as our Lord Jesus is Holy, and not in anyway a requirement so as to merit salvation. It is God who sanctifies us in the same way as He is the one who justifies us.  

I have another question regarding this but I would just like to ask this first: In your understanding, when is a person justified?  Is he justified the moment He believes in Jesus Christ?

Yes. Christ declares him to be righteous and therefore justified. Not that Christ declares that he is actually a righteous man, for no man is.

Quote from: Teresa on Mon Jul 02, 2012 - 08:02:24In the Catholic understanding there is no divide between faith and works when it comes to salvation.  We affirm that we are saved by grace.  But grace comes both in the form of faith and good works. Good works is not opposed to faith as they both come from God.

Hi Teresa

I just wanted to touch on this, as it is important. Paul, within the context of justification, did in fact separate works from grace as he said that if it is of grace, it is not of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. He also said quite clearly that we are saved by grace, through faith, not of works, not of ourselves (Eph 2).

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Dave

BTW, I didn't want to derail your other threads, but the one about woman being priests, every born again believer in the NT is a priest, so woman of faith have been priests for roughly two thousand years. Gotta go

Quote from: c4jesus on Mon Jul 02, 2012 - 12:55:55
That term 'protestant'? I thought it was long outdated. It means someone who protests. Who accepts that designation? I thought 'pentecostal' has since replaced it.

Pentecostals are Protestants.  They all branched off from the initial denominations that started during the revolt in the 1500s.

So no it is not outdated.  In fact, it is true to form becuase all the splintering groups were actually formed in protest against the group that they broke away from.

QuoteAs for this post, I am catholic. My idea about justification is that I have a role to play and God has a role to play to get me right with him. My role includes accepting that there is God and that he owns me (faith) and living in a way that shows this is true (christian life or morals) while trusting in the grace of Christ above all else.

I think your idea may be similar to Michaels.

So in your opinion, when you accept Jesus Christ are you justified right there and then?

Peace and All Good

Teresa

Quote from: Dave... on Mon Jul 02, 2012 - 19:46:14

Hi Teresa.

This is one of the reasons why Catholicism will not say 'by grace alone, thru faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone', right? 

Actually the Catholic formulation is correct. We are saved by Grace. And the Bible is clear about that.
But the Bible does not say that we are saved by faith ALONE.  We are saved by faith working in love and love is Good Works.

QuoteBecause Catholicism uses 'faith' as a title word for faith and works.

No she does not.  Faith is faith, and works is works. Grace encompasses both.

QuoteCatholicism believes in a beginning and and end justification.

Again, no she does not.

Catholicism believes that justification is process. It is began and is on going until we are finally completely justified.

QuoteLike I said, while a true faith is evidenced by good works, we should be careful not to put the cart before the horse here. The works are an evidence, a fruit, of one who is already justified. 

Not correct.

Many people without faith do good works, therefore faith is not necessarily a precondition for good works.

What faith does however is it perfects good works.

QuoteOne cannot merit his own salvation as it is impossible for man, for none are righteous, and all have fallen short of the glory of God.

And we have never claimed otherwise.

QuoteTo look to our own works for justification is to reject the very thing that legally justifies us before God, the righteousness of God,

And the we do not do that.

QuoteFor Jesus is the end of the Law for righteousness for all who believe. Romans 10:1-4 again.  

We have never contested that.

QuoteAgain, evidence. Man is conformed to Christ likeness, or as Paul calls it, being perfected by the Spirit, as a result of him being in Christ, and already justified. 

And I draw your attention to the text I have highlighted. Being PERFECTED byt he Spirit. It is when we are perfected that we are justified and not before.  When we have been conformed to Christ's likeness, then we have been perfected and so we are declared just.

That does not happen overnight. That is a long process that usually takes our entire lifetime. Only at the end of that process are we conformed to Christ's likeness and thus perfected. Only then are we justified.

QuoteGod calls anything done by the flesh filthy rags.

No He doesn't.

QuoteSo while there may be things that superficially look good, under the surface, somewhere down there, there is sin motivating at it's foundation.

]
And that also happens even in those who claim to have faith in Christ. Even those who believe in Christ perform good works with ulterior motives.

QuoteIf one has the correct understanding our our sin nature, then he knows that apart from Christ, we can do nothing [good], for God alone is good.  

But it does not mean that those who do good works buts do not know Christ did these works apart from Christ.

As Christ said in Matthew 25: 34-40
Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.' Then the righteous* will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?'  And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'

QuoteExactly!  If what is required is obedience, then therefore, what is required is good works because that is what good works is about - obedience to everything that God commands.

QuoteWhat is required is perfect obedience, impossible for us, but possible for God. That;s why we trust in the Just, and the justifier of all who believe.   

But for us to be justified, we need to be conformed to Christ who obeyed perfectly.  And yes, God will give us the grace to do that but it will require our assent, our cooperation.

Quote18:9  And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

18:10  Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

18:11  The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

18:12  I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

18:13  And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

18:14  I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

And if you notice, it says that the man was justified because He acknowledge His sins. That acknowledgement of sin is works.  It is an act of will that decideds that will cooperate with the light that is being directed at the nooks and crannies of our soul.

Peace and All Good

Teresa

Quote from: Dave... on Tue Jul 03, 2012 - 19:28:15
Hi Teresa

I just wanted to touch on this, as it is important. Paul, within the context of justification, did in fact separate works from grace as he said that if it is of grace, it is not of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. He also said quite clearly that we are saved by grace, through faith, not of works, not of ourselves (Eph 2).

What Paul is saying here is that salvation is a free gift of God and not by our own efforts.  To say that works is necessary is not saying that it is our works - our own efforts - that save us.

Quote
Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 

But all that both these verses means is that we are not saved by our own efforts. That we cannot think we can buy our way into heaven with works as currency.

The theology of works is actually much deeper than that and is grounded on Christ's injunction (over and over) again that we should OBEY the will of the Father.

It is only in obedience that we get conformed to Christ. However, some can have the mentality that they will obey to get something out of God (much like children who clean the house and get paid by their parents). That is not quite what we teach.  We say that one must obey for the sake obedience because God requires it (one cleans the house because one is a member of the family who lives in the house). One obeys out of love and not out of some ulterior motive.

One can also regard faith as currency.  Some people can think "well now I believe in God so God must save me now". Having that kind of faith is just as bad as thinking that one can use works as a bargaining tool with God.

QuoteBTW, I didn't want to derail your other threads, but the one about woman being priests, every born again believer in the NT is a priest, so woman of faith have been priests for roughly two thousand years. Gotta go

Yes, there is a gneeral priesthood but there is also the ordained priesthood. These are not one and the same thing.


Peace and All Good

Teresa

Quote from: Michael2012 on Tue Jul 03, 2012 - 05:23:13
What I was trying to point out is that, Abraham's act was not to be taken as what merits the righteousness credited by God to him. It was because of

his faith that righteousness was credited to him. All deeds or acts of obedience are a product of one's faith in Christ, as in this case where Abraham acted

according to the Faith he have in God and not because of his own desire or want. For God, it was not necessary that Abraham should actually go and

sacrifice Isaac, for God knows the heart of man. But man is not like God, that is why visible acts of faith such as that of Abraham is necessary for us to

somehow tell if a person indeed has faith or so we could somehow tell what kind of faith he has.

But the absence of the sacrifice would have meant the absence of faith.

Even for the Lord, it is the fact that Abraham went so far as to actually attempt to sacrifice Isaac which confirms his faith.
If He had not done so, then there would not have been any righteousness credited to him.

True faith cannot be divorced from the works.  It is only through obedience that our faith is confirmed. Even if we claim to have faith, if we do not obey then that faith does not count for much.

QuoteYou see, faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see (Heb. 11:1). Every man who has such confidence on something

has faith in such. So, having said that, even if Abraham had not acted ahead, he still have faith.

If Abraham had not sacrificed Isaac he would not have had any faith. This means that He does not trust God enough.
If he had not obeyed then that means that He did not trust God to know what is right or wrong. He might have had faith in God before but when God asked him to sacrifice his son and he didn't he probably would have thought that God got it wrong this time.

Our faith can only be proved by obedience. Without it there is no faith at all.

QuoteThe question would properly then be "What kind of faith

then would we think Abraham had towards God?".  And to answer this question, not only that of Abraham but that of anyone, we look for things or deeds

where we can somehow form our opinion regarding one's faith.  

But such belief is a self-interested faith. And that is not what God requires. What God requires is a total abandonment to His will.

Faith is not just giving intellectual assent. It is truly trusting the Lord.  If Abraham had not sacrificed Isaac, then that means He did not trust the Lord enough.

QuoteOpinion, in the sense that we could not truly ascertain one's faith, for faith is an inner thing,

and of the heart. But God could, even without the visible works. That is why, we need to profess our Faith, to the point of acting it out, so that man, who

can't see the inner things in a man, may be able to somehow understand and see that Faith, for their sake and ours. That by the words we profess and the

deeds we do, they will see the Glory of Jesus Christ and God, which may lead them to believe as well.  I hope my point is clear.  

But we are not talking here about ascertaining someone's faith but whether faith alone is enough. It has to be grounded in obedience otherwise it is dead faith and dead faith is no faith at all.

Another member in another thread said something like : the correct formulation is we are saved by the "exercise of our faith".

But as I pointed out to him "the exercise of our faith" is our works. So substituting that in his statements it becomes: we are saved by works.

Quote

QuoteI have another question regarding this but I would just like to ask this first: In your understanding, when is a person justified?  Is he justified the moment He believes in Jesus Christ?

Yes. Christ declares him to be righteous and therefore justified. Not that Christ declares that he is actually a righteous man, for no man is.

What then is the difference between Christ declaring him righteous and Christ declaring him a righteous man?

If he is not a righteous man and Christ merely declared him righteous, then you are saying that Christ is lying. It would be like Christ is saying to the lepers : " you are clean" but all the while the lepers remain unclean.

Peace and All Good

Teresa

Quote from: Teresa on Wed Jul 04, 2012 - 08:37:55

QuoteBut the absence of the sacrifice would have meant the absence of faith.

Not necessarily. It could be because he has little faith IF he had not gone ahead, and IF Jesus were there he could have said " You of little faith" (Matt. 14:31)

Quote
Even for the Lord, it is the fact that Abraham went so far as to actually attempt to sacrifice Isaac which confirms his faith.
If He had not done so, then there would not have been any righteousness credited to him.

You say it was necessary even for the Lord to see Abraham actually do it? Isn't God omniscient? Doesn't He know the heart of man (Acts 15:8)? So why then did God let it be that Abraham should go through the act? It is so, so that we would understand why God credited righteousness to Abraham, and that is because of his faith, being evidenced by his deed. And for our sake as well (Rom. 4:23-24).

Rom. 4:23-24 

23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

QuoteTrue faith cannot be divorced from the works.  It is only through obedience that our faith is confirmed. Even if we claim to have faith, if we do not obey then that faith does not count for much.

True Faith produce, and is manifested in good works. Obedience to God's will is a product of love (2John 1:16). On the part of God, there is really no necessity of visible deeds to prove one's faith, for he is an omniscient God. But on the part of man, who can't see the heart of man, it is necessary that faith is manifested in works for all man to see to the glory of God. Obedience and good works, really is  for us, evidence that we have a genuine Faith, and that the Spirit of Christ dwells and lives in us. One can claim all he wants, that he have genuine faith, and whatever, but all of this will be of no value if all there is, is only talk, and without a changed life.

QuoteIf Abraham had not sacrificed Isaac he would not have had any faith. This means that He does not trust God enough.
If he had not obeyed then that means that He did not trust God to know what is right or wrong. He might have had faith in God before but when God asked him to sacrifice his son and he didn't he probably would have thought that God got it wrong this time.

Hmm. This is all speculation. If he had not obeyed, it doesn't mean he had no faith, and it could also be speculated that he has little faith, or that he had fallen to temptation and sinned against God. Even any person with a genuine faith in Christ still falls into sin is it not?

QuoteOur faith can only be proved by obedience. Without it there is no faith at all

Obedience flows out of and is a product of Love towards God. It is an evidence of Faith, but not in the absolute sense, for one who has faith may still commit the sin of disobedience. It would likewise not be correct to say that disobedience on the other hand is an evidence of having no faith. Even while we still commit sin, even while we strive to be holy, our faith remains. It is not as if every time we disobey, we have lost our faith, and have it back again when we obey.

QuoteBut such belief is a self-interested faith. And that is not what God requires. What God requires is a total abandonment to His will.

God wants us to be perfect and holy just as Jesus is. Perfect in faith, in obedience, in love, and all.

QuoteFaith is not just giving intellectual assent. It is truly trusting the Lord.  If Abraham had not sacrificed Isaac, then that means He did not trust the Lord enough.

Yes it is not. Faith is truly believing, fully trusting, and completely confident in the Lord. Again, regarding Abraham, not trusting the Lord enough does not mean no Faith. It may be that his faith weakened as did the Apostles at various times, but their faith remain, weak as it may, little as it may, but not lost. In such event, they sinned. 

QuoteBut we are not talking here about ascertaining someone's faith but whether faith alone is enough. It has to be grounded in obedience otherwise it is dead faith and dead faith is no faith at all.

Hmm. Now I see clearly what you are getting at. We are justified by our  Faith in Jesus Christ (Galatians 2:16). I've made my point regarding obedience in relation to faith. 

QuoteAnother member in another thread said something like : the correct formulation is we are saved by the "exercise of our faith".

But as I pointed out to him "the exercise of our faith" is our works. So substituting that in his statements it becomes: we are saved by works.

As for me, we don't exercise our faith, we live by it. Faith in Jesus Christ  is our life.

QuoteWhat then is the difference between Christ declaring him righteous and Christ declaring him a righteous man?

If he is not a righteous man and Christ merely declared him righteous, then you are saying that Christ is lying. It would be like Christ is saying to the lepers : " you are clean" but all the while the lepers remain unclean.

This is my post regarding justification and sanctification:

QuoteWhat does justification means relative to the Bible? In the New testament (e.g. in Romans 4:25), the Greek word "Dikaiosis" is translated as "justification" which means, to be declared to be righteous or just. It is not the act of MAKING someone righteous, but the act of DECLARING one righteous.

What does sanctification means relative to the Bible? In the New Testament (e.g. in 2 Thessalonians 2:13), the Greek word " Hagaismos" is translated as "sanctification" which means as the process of making something holy.

(Gal. 2:16) By Faith in Jesus Christ, we are justified, meaning we are declared to be righteous. Take note of what Jesus' death had accomplished. He paid for our sins, those who believed in Him. Therefore, we are justified by his blood (Rom. 5:9). When Christ declares us to be righteous, it is on the basis that he had already paid for our sins. But although our sins are already paid for, it doesn't follow that we are ACTUALLY righteous, for there is no one righteous (Rom.3:10), except Jesus (1John 2:1). But if Jesus declares us to be righteous, then rightfully we are, by the power of his blood, his righteousness having been imputed to us.


 

Quote from: Michael2012 on Wed Jul 04, 2012 - 21:18:23
Not necessarily. It could be because he has little faith IF he had not gone ahead, and IF Jesus were there he could have said " You of little faith" (Matt. 14:31)  

In which case it would not have been credited to him as righteousness.

Quote
You say it was necessary even for the Lord to see Abraham actually do it? Isn't God omniscient? Doesn't He know the heart of man (Acts 15:8)? So why then did God let it be that Abraham should go through the act?

But isn't that exactly the point?  Why did God let Abraham go ahead if He already knew what Abraham was going to do? Why did it matter? Because unless Abraham went through with it, there is no faith.
Faith in the old testament is really about trust. It is trusting that what God is asking of you is for your good.
You can only say you have faith when you exercise that faith.  Faith is exercised in obedience. When you trust someone, you do what they ask you to do even when it seems to you to be not the best thing to do.

QuoteIt is so, so that we would understand why God credited righteousness to Abraham, and that is because of his faith, being evidenced by his deed. And for our sake as well (Rom. 4:23-24).

Rom. 4:23-24

23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

Yes, that is true.  Abraham becomes an example of what it means to live in faith – to live trusting in the Lord even when things seem impossible.

QuoteTrue Faith produce, and is manifested in good works. Obedience to God's will is a product of love (2John 1:16).

Something seems to be wrong with this citation. Verse 13 is the last verse in 2 John 1.

QuoteOn the part of God, there is really no necessity of visible deeds to prove one's faith,  

You are making a false dichotomy here.
God cannot see works where there is none.  Since true faith is manifested in good works, then without good works there is no true faith.  So faith is not there and there is nothing for God to see.

Quotefor he is an omniscient God.

But omniscience has nothing to do with it.  If there is no works that prove the faith, then there is no faith.
Let me give an example, suppose I say to God I believe in Him. Then God says if you do, then go and preach to this savage and primitive tribe.
If I don't obey that, no matter how much I claim to have faith, I truly don't. In His omniscience, what God will see will be my cowardice, my lack of faith, my lack of trust. However, if I went ahead despite my fears, then He knows I have faith.  He can see my fear, He can see my trepidation but He can also see the courage it took to follow Him.

QuoteBut on the part of man, who can't see the heart of man, it is necessary that faith is manifested in works for all man to see to the glory of God.

But I don't think that has anything to do with it because what we are discussing is whether there is faith if one does not obey.  If one does not obey God then there is no faith, only claims and pretensions at having faith. In the end, if one does not obey, faith is only a mere word that means nothing and is good for nothing.

QuoteObedience and good works, really is for us, evidence that we have a genuine  Faith, and that the Spirit of Christ dwells and lives in us.

If that is the case then you are saying that obedience and good works is all for show. That is not what God desires from us. He wants us to obey His command out of love. This has nothing to do with proving to others that we have faith.  It is all about God. We must obey because it is God's decree.

QuoteOne can claim all he wants, that he have genuine faith, and whatever, but all of this will be of no value if all there is, is only talk, and without a changed life.

And again, that is exactly my point. Without the works there really is no faith because faith is not just a mental assent. Faith is something that is lived, that is done.

QuoteHmm. This is all speculation. If he had not obeyed, it doesn't mean he had no faith, and it could also be speculated that he has little faith, or that he had fallen to temptation and sinned against God.

Exactly! He would have fallen into temptation  against faith. If he had not obeyed he would not have had the faith to obey.  Obedience is the key.  Mental assent is not enough.

QuoteEven any person with a genuine faith in Christ still falls into sin is it not?

True. That is why I say that unless we have been cleansed and conformed to Christ we will not be justified. We will only be declared just when we have been made just.

QuoteObedience flows out of and is a product of Love towards God. It is an evidence of Faith, but not in the absolute sense, for one who has faith may still commit the sin of disobedience.  

And this is exactly why the Catholic view point is the correct view point.  We say that we are saved by Grace through Faith working in Love.  Faith alone is not enough that is why the text does not say faith alone.  Paul who wrote much about the necessity of faith also wrote "Faith, Hope and Love remain, these three. But the greatest of these is Love."

QuoteIt would likewise not be correct to say that disobedience on the other hand is an evidence of having no faith. Even while we still commit sin, even while we strive to be holy, our faith remains. It is not as if every time we disobey, we have lost our faith, and have it back again when we obey.

This is a different tangent altogether.
We are discussing Abraham and why his faith was credited to him as righteousness.  And I said that it was credited to him as righteousness because He obeyed, which means that He really had faith.  If Abraham had not gone through with the sacrifice then that means He did not trust God enough. He did not trust that God's decree is good. So in that instance how can God give him  credit for it.

QuoteGod wants us to be perfect and holy just as Jesus is. Perfect in faith, in obedience, in love, and all.  

Amen to that.  That is what salvation is all about. Our deification – our transformation into the image of Christ.

QuoteYes it is not. Faith is truly believing, fully trusting, and completely confident in the Lord. Again, regarding Abraham, not trusting the Lord enough does not mean no Faith. It may be that his faith weakened as did the Apostles at various times, but their faith remain, weak as it may, little as it may, but not lost. In such event, they sinned.

In which case, in that instance, then it cannot be credited to them as righteousness.  Sin cannot be credited as righteousness.

QuoteAs for me, we don't exercise our faith, we live by it. Faith in Jesus Christ is our life.  

I think that is what this guy means as well.  Exercising our faith is to live our faith. And living our faith is work.

QuoteThis is my post regarding justification and sanctification:
What does justification means relative to the Bible? In the New testament (e.g. in Romans 4:25), the Greek word "Dikaiosis" is translated as "justification" which means, to be declared to be righteous or just. It is not the act of MAKING someone righteous, but the act of DECLARING one righteous.

Dikaiosis does NOT mean the act of declaring one righteous.

Taken from the link http://www.greek-dictionary.net/dikaios?page=1
Meaning:  right, righteous, upright; in the NT this refers to God's proper standards and actions, expressed in the covenants; as a noun it refers to a person in accord with God's standards, in proper relationship with God
just, equitable, fair,, Mt. 20:4; Lk. 12:57; Jn. 5:30; Col. 4:1; of persons, just, righteous, absolutely, Jn. 17:25; Rom. 3:10, 26; 2 Tim. 4:8; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 Jn. 1:9; 2:1, 29; Rev. 16:5; righteous by account and acceptance, Rom. 2:13; 5:19; in ordinary usage, just, upright, innocent, pious, Mt. 5:45; 9:13, et al. freq.; oJ dikaioV, the Just One, one of the distinctive titles of the Messiah, Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14

QuoteWhat does sanctification means relative to the Bible? In the New Testament (e.g. in 2 Thessalonians 2:13), the Greek word " Hagaismos" is translated as "sanctification" which means as the process of making something holy.

Which brings me back to the question, does God declare us just even though we are unjust?  Does that not mean that God is lying to Himself about the true state of our souls?

Quote(Gal. 2:16) By Faith in Jesus Christ, we are justified, meaning we are declared to be righteous. Take note of what Jesus' death had accomplished. He paid for our sins, those who believed in Him.

Yes, but if you read  Gal 2 in it's entirety, the point that Paul was making here is that we not justified by the works of the Law, i.e. Mosaic law.  This chapter and the one before deals with His displeasure at the attempts by Judaizers to enforce Mosaic Law  (specifically circumcision) on the Gentiles.

It is important I think whenever referencing the Scripture to be mindful of the over all content of the chapter and book.

QuoteTherefore, we are justified by his blood (Rom. 5:9). When Christ declares us to be righteous, it is on the basis that he had already paid for our sins. But although our sins are already paid for, it doesn't follow that we are ACTUALLY righteous, for there is no one righteous (Rom.3:10), except Jesus (1John 2:1). But if Jesus declares us to be righteous, then rightfully we are, by the power of his blood, his righteousness having been imputed to us.

I am not sure whether you are supposed to be quoting the text here or giving an exegesis.
My comment here is the same as above.  Read the entire chapters so that you get what the entire text is all about.  The singular verses you are referring to are not quite saying what you think they are saying because they are only a small part of the entire Chapter.

Peace and All Good

Teresa

Quote from: Teresa on Thu Jul 05, 2012 - 08:15:48

QuoteWhat does justification means relative to the Bible? In the New testament (e.g. in Romans 4:25), the Greek word "Dikaiosis" is translated as "justification" which means, to be declared to be righteous or just. It is not the act of MAKING someone righteous, but the act of DECLARING one righteous.

Dikaiosis does NOT mean the act of declaring one righteous.

Taken from the link http://www.greek-dictionary.net/dikaios?page=1
Meaning:  right, righteous, upright; in the NT this refers to God's proper standards and actions, expressed in the covenants; as a noun it refers to a person in accord with God's standards, in proper relationship with God
just, equitable, fair,, Mt. 20:4; Lk. 12:57; Jn. 5:30; Col. 4:1; of persons, just, righteous, absolutely, Jn. 17:25; Rom. 3:10, 26; 2 Tim. 4:8; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 Jn. 1:9; 2:1, 29; Rev. 16:5; righteous by account and acceptance, Rom. 2:13; 5:19; in ordinary usage, just, upright, innocent, pious, Mt. 5:45; 9:13, et al. freq.; oJ dikaioV, the Just One, one of the distinctive titles of the Messiah, Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14

Dikaiosis does indeed mean the act of declaring one righteous.

If not, how would you interpret the following:

Luk 7:29  And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.

Quote from: Jimmy on Thu Jul 05, 2012 - 08:51:28
Dikaiosis does indeed mean the act of declaring one righteous.

If not, how would you interpret the following:

Luk 7:29  And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.

The greek word in Luke 7:29 was  edikaiOsan.

That was was a declaration.

Dikaiosis by itself is what I extracted from the Greek dictionary.

Furthermore, we can declare the Lord just because He is just.  Would God lie to Himself and declare us just even though we are not?

And yet that is what Protestant theology claims.

But this understanding rests not so much on theology but on the philosophy that underpins "reformed" thinking -Nominalism.

The link below explains what I mean.

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6802



Peace and  All Good

Teresa

Quote from: Teresa on Thu Jul 05, 2012 - 09:03:18

Quote from: Jimmy on Thu Jul 05, 2012 - 08:51:28
Dikaiosis does indeed mean the act of declaring one righteous.

If not, how would you interpret the following:

Luk 7:29  And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.

The greek word in Luke 7:29 was  edikaiOsan.

That was was a declaration.

Dikaiosis by itself is what I extracted from the Greek dictionary.

Furthermore, we can declare the Lord just because He is just.  Would God lie to Himself and declare us just even though we are not?

Peace and  All Good

Teresa

Would God lie to Himself and make us just even though we are not?  How exactly can He do that?

Teresa, As you are no doubt aware, a significant difference between the Catholic and the nonCatholic view of Justification is the difference between rendering δικαιόω as meaning to make versus to declare righteous.  The Catholic view tends [incorrectly] to combine the two distinct acts in our salvation of Justification and sanctification.  The nonCatholic view generally does not.

Personally I think the differences are too great to be resolved in a forum such as this.  But in a nutshell, to be justified [declared righteous] does not mean that God treats me as if I had never sinned, but rather as if I had already paid the penalty of eternal hell for having sinned.  It is through Jesus' blood [i.e.,His death] that the penalty was paid.  And it is through that payment of penalty that I am declared righteous.

Hi Teresa,

Quote from: Teresa on Thu Jul 05, 2012 - 08:15:48
Quote
True Faith produce, and is manifested in good works. Obedience to God's will is a product of love (2John 1:16).
Something seems to be wrong with this citation. Verse 13 is the last verse in 2 John 1.

Thanks for pointing it out. I'm sorry. It should have been 2 John 1: 6 And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.
   

QuoteGod cannot see works where there is none.  Since true faith is manifested in good works, then without good works there is no true faith.  So faith is not there and there is nothing for God to see.

I don't want to belabor on this. But I just want you to know my stand on this. I believe that God can see works even when it has not yet actually been done. He can see the past present, future events and works. There is nothing hidden from God. An example is the work of betrayal by Judas. Another, is the work of denial by Peter, even the work of Jesus on the Cross, and many others. That is why I said, there is no REAL need for visible works for God to see in order for God to know the faith of Abraham.

QuoteBut omniscience has nothing to do with it.  If there is no works that prove the faith, then there is no faith.
Let me give an example, suppose I say to God I believe in Him. Then God says if you do, then go and preach to this savage and primitive tribe.
If I don't obey that, no matter how much I claim to have faith, I truly don't. In His omniscience, what God will see will be my cowardice, my lack of faith, my lack of trust. However, if I went ahead despite my fears, then He knows I have faith.  He can see my fear, He can see my trepidation but He can also see the courage it took to follow Him.

Omniscience of God is very relevant for it is his nature. Even before you even say to God you believe in  Him, He already knows. God cannot be mocked, fooled or deceived. Nothing is hidden from Him, even the very depths of one's soul. Yes, God wants us to obey, not so much as to prove our faith to Him, for He knows what faith we have. He wants us to love Him. And how do we love Him? By walking in obedience to his commands. AS a reference, 2 John 1:6.

QuoteIf that is the case then you are saying that obedience and good works is all for show. That is not what God desires from us. He wants us to obey His command out of love. This has nothing to do with proving to others that we have faith.  It is all about God. We must obey because it is God's decree.

No mam, it' not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that obedience and good works are our testimony to man, even ourselves, and not to God. Testimony that  the Spirit of Christ dwells and lives in us. That many would see the Glory and salvation of God in us, which may lead some to repentance and belief. More so, obedience and good works is for our own good, that God may bless us more abundantly in this life and in the next.

QuoteExactly! He would have fallen into temptation  against faith.If he had not obeyed he would not have had the faith to obey. Obedience is the key.  Mental assent is not enough.

This is why it's really hard when we talk about a hypothetical situation such as this. It's the other way around. He had faith that's why He obeyed. And that is what really what happened as the scripture says. It could not be said the other way. Faith in Jesus Christ is the key, not obedience.

QuoteTrue. That is why I say that unless we have been cleansed and conformed to Christ we will not be justified. We will only be declared just when we have been made just.

We have been cleansed from sin by Christ through his death on the cross, and are now justified through faith in Him, having bought us with His precious blood to our redemption, having paid the penalty of our sins. Being conformed to Christ must be the goal of every Christian, but not so much as to be justified but rather to being sanctified towards holiness. We have been declared righteous through faith in Christ, therefore justified.

QuoteDikaiosis does NOT mean the act of declaring one righteous.

Taken from the link http://www.greek-dictionary.net/dikaios?page=1
Meaning:  right, righteous, upright; in the NT this refers to God's proper standards and actions, expressed in the covenants; as a noun it refers to a person in accord with God's standards, in proper relationship with God
just, equitable, fair,, Mt. 20:4; Lk. 12:57; Jn. 5:30; Col. 4:1; of persons, just, righteous, absolutely, Jn. 17:25; Rom. 3:10, 26; 2 Tim. 4:8; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 Jn. 1:9; 2:1, 29; Rev. 16:5; righteous by account and acceptance, Rom. 2:13; 5:19; in ordinary usage, just, upright, innocent, pious, Mt. 5:45; 9:13, et al. freq.; oJ dikaioV, the Just One, one of the distinctive titles of the Messiah, Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14

The greek word you posted is not dikaiosis. It's dikaios. My scripture reference was Romans 4:25. Below is my post for your reference:

QuoteWhat does justification means relative to the Bible? In the New testament (e.g. in Romans 4:25), the Greek word "Dikaiosis" is translated as "justification" which means, to be declared to be righteous or just. It is not the act of MAKING someone righteous, but the act of DECLARING one righteous.

I maintain my post to be correct.

QuoteWhich brings me back to the question, does God declare us just even though we are unjust?  Does that not mean that God is lying to Himself about the true state of our souls?

God cannot lie. It is impossible for he is Holy.  When Jesus declares us to be righteous, then rightfully we are, by the power of his blood, his righteousness having been imputed to us. It is not we who are ACTUALLY (or PRACTICALLY?) righteous. It is Jesus's righteousness imputed to us that we are declared to be righteous. It's in the same sense as when Jesus declares that my sins are paid, not that I ACTUALLY paid my sins but that because He paid for them to my credit.

QuoteQuote
(Gal. 2:16) By Faith in Jesus Christ, we are justified, meaning we are declared to be righteous. Take note of what Jesus' death had accomplished. He paid for our sins, those who believed in Him.
Yes, but if you read  Gal 2 in it's entirety, the point that Paul was making here is that we not justified by the works of the Law, i.e. Mosaic law.  This chapter and the one before deals with His displeasure at the attempts by Judaizers to enforce Mosaic Law  (specifically circumcision) on the Gentiles.

I cited Gal. 2:16 not to explain or discuss it, but to only give reference to show how we may be justified.

QuoteQuote
Therefore, we are justified by his blood (Rom. 5:9). When Christ declares us to be righteous, it is on the basis that he had already paid for our sins. But although our sins are already paid for, it doesn't follow that we are ACTUALLY righteous, for there is no one righteous (Rom.3:10), except Jesus (1John 2:1). But if Jesus declares us to be righteous, then rightfully we are, by the power of his blood, his righteousness having been imputed to us.
I am not sure whether you are supposed to be quoting the text here or giving an exegesis.
My comment here is the same as above.  Read the entire chapters so that you get what the entire text is all about.  The singular verses you are referring to are not quite saying what you think they are saying because they are only a small part of the entire Chapter.

I cited Rom. 5:9 not to give an exegesis, but only give reference to show when we are justified. Same with Rom. 3:10, as reference to show that no one is righteous, and 1 John 2:1 , as reference to show that Jesus is the righteous one.







   

Hi Teresa.

I appreciate the time that you've taken to answer my posts point by point, but I believe that the substance of my points are not being addressed, or maybe not understood by you. I'm not going to weight this thread down by writing the same things over and over. But I will try to get at the core of our differences and then perhaps you will see my previous posts in this thread in a different light. Lets start here...

Our lives are a package deal. Even if one could reach a state of perfection before Glory, there is still past sin to deal with. We cannot just pretend that a state that we reach in a point in time saves us. The Bible does not teach this. If you've sinned one time at any time in your life, then you cannot ever be perfect for justification, and that's what justification requires. That's why it is said that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. That includes you too Teresa. All of us. It's either all Jesus, or all us. If it's all Jesus, then there is no process, as we are not given His righteousness, the righteousness of God, in doses, nor is Christ Jesus a gap filler. It's all Him, or all us.  

Also, as a side note, without faith it is impossible to please God.

Teresa, do you hold the Bible as absolute truth?

Also, every sin is a transgression of the Law. Have you ever sinned one time in your life?

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Dave

Quote from: Jimmy on Thu Jul 05, 2012 - 09:31:03
Would God lie to Himself and make us just even though we are not?  How exactly can He do that?

Teresa, As you are no doubt aware, a significant difference between the Catholic and the nonCatholic view of Justification is the difference between rendering δικαιόω as meaning to make versus to declare righteous.  The Catholic view tends [incorrectly] to combine the two distinct acts in our salvation of Justification and sanctification.  The nonCatholic view generally does not.

Personally I think the differences are too great to be resolved in a forum such as this.  But in a nutshell, to be justified [declared righteous] does not mean that God treats me as if I had never sinned, but rather as if I had already paid the penalty of eternal hell for having sinned.  It is through Jesus' blood [i.e.,His death] that the penalty was paid.  And it is through that payment of penalty that I am declared righteous.

Actually, there was no such distinction until Luther and Calvin made that distinction. The Church for 1500 years never saw a distinction.

I gave you a link to an article on Nominalism. I hope you read that because that explains clearly where this split between justification and sanctification came from.

But here are some extracts from the book Return to Rome by Francis Beckwith - former President of the Evangelical Theological Society

Beckwith quotes Alister McGrath:
"The essential feature of the Reformation doctrines of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification and regeneration.  Although it must be emphasized that this distinction is purely notional, in that it is impossible to separate the two within the ordo salutis, the essential point is that a notional distinction is made where none had been acknowledged before in the history of Christian doctrine.  A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into western theological tradition where none had ever existed or ever been contemplated, before.  The reformation understanding of the nature of justification – as opposed to its mode – must therefore be regarded as a theological novum.

Quote from: Michael2012 on Thu Jul 05, 2012 - 13:07:27
I don't want to belabor on this. But I just want you to know my stand on this. I believe that God can see works even when it has not yet actually been done. He can see the past present, future events and works. There is nothing hidden from God. An example is the work of betrayal by Judas. Another, is the work of denial by Peter, even the work of Jesus on the Cross, and many others. That is why I said, there is no REAL need for visible works for God to see in order for God to know the faith of Abraham.

I do get what you are trying to say with regards Abraham and with regards people of faith in general. But it really does not work.

God can only see "actualized good work" whether it be now or 100 years from now.
If say Abraham had faith and he followed through with the sacrifice say the following morning or a week later or a month later then God knows that actualization. So God can credit Abraham right there and then, the righteousness that his future act merits.

However, if Abraham did not follow through at all (never) - then there is nothing for God to see(neither then or in the future) because there is no (and there will never be)  actualization. There is no good act - even in the remotests future - to credit him with.  God's omniscience sees reality.  A faith that is not actualized, that is not brought to a realization is just not there for God to see.

QuoteOmniscience of God is very relevant for it is his nature. Even before you even say to God you believe in  Him, He already knows. God cannot be mocked, fooled or deceived. Nothing is hidden from Him, even the very depths of one's soul. Yes, God wants us to obey, not so much as to prove our faith to Him, for He knows what faith we have. He wants us to love Him. And how do we love Him? By walking in obedience to his commands. AS a reference, 2 John 1:6.  

Yes nothing is hidden from Him but even God will not see an act that is never realized.  If I professed faith and told God I will obey Him and I obeyed Him 3 years later, there is something for His omniscience to see ( delayed but it is there).

But if someone never ever does what one promised to do, then there nothing there for God to see in the future or otherweise.

QuoteNo mam, it' not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that obedience and good works are our testimony to man, even ourselves, and not to God.

But apart from the possibility of leading others to Christ - what profit is there in it if what is required is our salvation.
If we are already saved once we have faith, then what is there a need for good works.  Just to testify to our faith?  But if it is not necessary because we are already saved then why do it at all?

I have given an extract above from the Francis Beckwith's Return to Rome, in response to Jimmy.

I think that will explain why Protestants have a forensic idea of justification.

Peace and All Good

Teresa

Quote from: Teresa on Fri Jul 06, 2012 - 07:24:32

Quote from: Jimmy on Thu Jul 05, 2012 - 09:31:03
Would God lie to Himself and make us just even though we are not?  How exactly can He do that?

Teresa, As you are no doubt aware, a significant difference between the Catholic and the nonCatholic view of Justification is the difference between rendering δικαιόω as meaning to make versus to declare righteous.  The Catholic view tends [incorrectly] to combine the two distinct acts in our salvation of Justification and sanctification.  The nonCatholic view generally does not.

Personally I think the differences are too great to be resolved in a forum such as this.  But in a nutshell, to be justified [declared righteous] does not mean that God treats me as if I had never sinned, but rather as if I had already paid the penalty of eternal hell for having sinned.  It is through Jesus' blood [i.e.,His death] that the penalty was paid.  And it is through that payment of penalty that I am declared righteous.

Actually, there was no such distinction until Luther and Calvin made that distinction. The Church for 1500 years never saw a distinction.

Actually that distinction arose the with the writers of the NT as is pretty clear just by the way the words are used there.  The distinction, apparently, got all messed up and confused some time later when the RCC came along with their attention to "Sacred Literature" instead of the inspired writings of the NT.

Quote from: Dave... on Thu Jul 05, 2012 - 19:43:57
Hi Teresa.

I appreciate the time that you've taken to answer my posts point by point, but I believe that the substance of my points are not being addressed, or maybe not understood by you. I'm not going to weight this thread down by writing the same things over and over. But I will try to get at the core of our differences and then perhaps you will see my previous posts in this thread in a different light. Lets start here...

Our lives are a package deal. Even if one could reach a state of perfection before Glory, there is still past sin to deal with. We cannot just pretend that a state that we reach in a point in time saves us. The Bible does not teach this. If you've sinned one time at any time in your life, then you cannot ever be perfect for justification, and that's what justification requires. That's why it is said that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. That includes you too Teresa. All of us. It's either all Jesus, or all us. If it's all Jesus, then there is no process, as we are not given His righteousness, the righteousness of God, in doses, nor is Christ Jesus a gap filler. It's all Him, or all us.  

Hi Dave,
I have highlighted this particular text because the extract from Beckwith's book that I cited in my response to Jimmy addresses this very issue.

It is because Luther adhered to a Nominalist philosphy that he could not conceive that grace has real ontological effects in the soul.

I recommend reading my response to Jimmy as that goes to the heart of the matter.

QuoteAlso, as a side note, without faith it is impossible to please God.

I do not think that is quite true.  God requires our obedience to Him.  The Law is written in all our hearts even though some might not "know" God in quite the way we know him.  God requires obedience and God's voice and God's law is every man's heart through his conscience.

QuoteTeresa, do you hold the Bible as absolute truth?  

My answer to that is yes and I can answer that with a yes because I also hold as true the infallibility of the one who canonized the Bible - the Catholic Church.

This is something that a lot of Protestants have not given much thought.  How did the Bible come to us?
I think a good study of the history of the Bible will reveal some interesting insights for those who are unaware of its history.

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/timeline_of_how_the_bible_where.htm

QuoteAlso, every sin is a transgression of the Law. Have you ever sinned one time in your life?

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

No. Much more than once!  I am a sinner.  But I also have hope in Christ. But unlike Protestants who believe that justifcation is forensic ( a mere declaration) I believe that grace does have ontological effects on my soul - that as I strive to obey God's command, that striving slowly transforms me into an obedient person.

The cultivation of virtue makes one a virtuous person. The cultivation of vice transforms one and makes one vicious.

Sin has ontological effect on the soul but so also does grace.  And where sin abounds, grace abounds even more.

Peace and All Good

Teresa

Quote from: Jimmy on Fri Jul 06, 2012 - 07:48:24
Actually that distinction arose the with the writers of the NT as is pretty clear just by the way the words are used there.  The distinction, apparently, got all messed up and confused some time later when the RCC came along with their attention to "Sacred Literature" instead of the inspired writings of the NT.

Actually it didn't.  How the early Church understood salvation is a process. A process of being transformed into the image of Christ.

Beckwith also wrote something like: salvation is not about getting into heaven, but about getting heaven into us.

If Theosis is the goal, then justification cannot be forensic.  It is only this forensic understanding of justification that necessitated the fissure between justifcation and sanctification.  And as McGrath has explained this idea is a theological novelty of the Reformatoin. All because of the philosophical bent of Luther and Calvin towards nominalism.

I like quoting Beckwith because if anyone knew reformed theology it was him - he was the President of the Evangelical Theological Society.

I do suggest your read the article I linked to in my earlier post.

Peace and All Good


Teresa

Quote from: Teresa on Fri Jul 06, 2012 - 07:24:32


Because my friend begins with the Reformed belief that justification is forensic – that it is merely a matter of Christ's righteousness being imputed to us – he thinks that a Christian's cooperation with God's grace in the process of justification, as the Catholic understands it, is forensic as well.  So his error, it seems to me, rests in his understanding of grace, that it has no ontological status, that is not a divine quality that can change nature over time in the soul of the believer who cooperates with God's free gift of grace. For my friend as well as many others, the "grace

Quote from: Jimmy on Fri Jul 06, 2012 - 08:01:12

Quote from: Teresa on Fri Jul 06, 2012 - 07:24:32


Because my friend begins with the Reformed belief that justification is forensic – that it is merely a matter of Christ's righteousness being imputed to us – he thinks that a Christian's cooperation with God's grace in the process of justification, as the Catholic understands it, is forensic as well.  So his error, it seems to me, rests in his understanding of grace, that it has no ontological status, that is not a divine quality that can change nature over time in the soul of the believer who cooperates with God's free gift of grace. For my friend as well as many others, the "grace

Quote from: Teresa on Fri Jul 06, 2012 - 07:59:44

I like quoting Beckwith because if anyone knew reformed theology it was him - he was the President of the Evangelical Theological Society.

If you have read much of anything that I have posted here at the forum you must know that I despise and reject the reformed theology of salvation more, much more, that even the RCC theology of salvation.  Reformed theology has a confused and a completely wrong view of regeneration to begin with.  It is therefore not possible that their view of justification and sanctification which follows could be correct.  You will not win any points with me using such writers to support your arguments.

Quote from: Jimmy on Fri Jul 06, 2012 - 08:09:26

If you have read much of anything that I have posted here at the forum you must know that I despise and reject the reformed theology of salvation more, much more, that even the RCC theology of salvation.  Reformed theology has a confused and a completely wrong view of regeneration to begin with.  You will not win any points with me using such writers to support your arguments.

I asked which part is not true.  You could also explain why it is not true and there include where you diverge from reformed theology and why.

And for the record I am not trying to win points with you. I am trying to explain my viewpoint and in the process perhaps question yours.

Peace and All Good

Teresa

Quote from: Teresa on Fri Jul 06, 2012 - 08:13:12

Quote from: Jimmy on Fri Jul 06, 2012 - 08:09:26

If you have read much of anything that I have posted here at the forum you must know that I despise and reject the reformed theology of salvation more, much more, that even the RCC theology of salvation.  Reformed theology has a confused and a completely wrong view of regeneration to begin with.  You will not win any points with me using such writers to support your arguments.

I asked which part is not true.  You could also explain why it is not true and there include where you diverge from reformed theology and why.

And for the record I am not trying to win points with you. I am trying to explain my viewpoint and in the process perhaps question yours.

Peace and All Good

Teresa

Reformed theology is summarized by the well known TULIP.  With only minor qualifications or exceptions, each and every aspect of TULIP is false.

Quote from: Jimmy on Fri Jul 06, 2012 - 08:30:58

Reformed theology is summarized by the well known TULIP.  With only minor qualifications or exceptions, each and every aspect of TULIP is false.

That is only part of reformed theology and that has to do with Calvinism.

But you still have not answered my question as to which part is not true in the quote that you cited and why it is not true.  While you are at it, you can also explain why reformed theology differs with your own understanding.

Peace and All Good

Teressa