Continuation with Jeremiah - Discussion not Book

Thinkingstuff your explanations are consistent with what I have gleaned from conversing with other Catholics and from reading the Catholic Catechism.

That being said, I have problems with harmonizing the Catholic view with the Bible. I especially have a problem with your definition of a "sign" or "seal" above. For example Paul said that circumcision was such a "sign" or "seal" of justification by faith in Romans 4:11

11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

However, Paul seems to be arguing the very reverse of your conclusion as to the ancient meaning of a "sign" and "seal." You argue that the "sign" or "seal" is INCLUSIVE but Paul is arguing that it is EXCLUSIVE of Justification by faith.

For example, he says that a person is justified by faith regardless if they have received circumcision or have not received circumcision - "the father of all them that beleive, though they be NOT CIRCUMCISED" thus excluding circumcision as part of justification by faith.

Moreover, his argument concerning one who had been circumcised, indeed the very one with which circumcision originated (Abraham) is that he had already been justified by faith BEFORE he was circumcised not that circumcision was inclusive in being justified - "the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised:"

Paul is not merely saying the very opposite of what you are saying but is condemning what you are saying as false. You are saying that things which are a "sign" or "seal" are inclusive of the very thing they signify but Paul is explicitly and clearly denying that very idea by insisting that Abraham already "had" justification without the sign or seal in the case of Abraham and in the case of all gentile believers.

Romans 4:9-11 is the only place where the time of justification is specifically addressed in Romans 4:1-22 ("when" - v.10). In Romans 5:1-2 Paul uses Aorist tense and Perfect tense verbs to demonstrate it is not a continuing action but rather a completed action in the past just as he argues in verse 11 that Abraham already "had" been justified before being circumcision.

If you are wrong on this point then the whole soteriological foundation of Rome is wrong.

 

Biblicist, you wrote : "Romans 4:9-11 is the only place where the time of justification is specifically addressed in Romans 4:1-22 ("when" - v.10). In Romans 5:1-2 Paul uses Aorist tense and Perfect tense verbs to demonstrate it is not a continuing action but rather a completed action in the past just as he argues in verse 11 that Abraham already "had" been justified before being circumcision."

"The New American Bible " says this - Since this liberation will first find completion in the believer's resurrection, salvation is described as "future ' in Rom. 5:10.

Rom 4:3-4 here Paul is referring to "works" apart from God's grace. We can't expect God to give us 'grace' like someone who asks their boss for pay .wages '. Faith in Jesus must be necessary for our "good works '' in order for it to be considered a " work of grace '' , otherwise , it is a work of obligation.
Rom.4:3- it was "credited'' to him as righteousness. God records what the person actually accomplished.

Paul uses the word "alone '' 3 times in Rom.4:12,16,23 but never uses it with the word "faith ' . If Paul wanted to teach "Faith Alone " , seems as he would have said so, don't you think so ?

 

Will you agree with me that whenever one must respond to scripture by pitting other scripture against scripture that their understanding of both scriptures are flawed or else God is the author of confusion? If you undertand the scripture you can explain it within its own context. Try to overthrow my contextual exposition if you can. You obviously ignored it, so I guess you had to restort to plan "B" - pit scripture against scripture!

The term "salvation" involves a great variety of different aspects that are not synonymous with each other in nature or time of occurrence. For example, the salvation of our bodies is yet future when they are glorified. However, gospel conversion is also an aspect of salvation which occurs before glorificaton of the body and thus is distinct from it in the sense they deal with two completely different aspects of our salvation without excluding either from the great unbrella term of "salvaiton."

Paul is dealing with individual apsects of salvation in a logical order in the book of Romans. First he deals with the problem that demands the need of salvation (Rom. 1:18-3:23) or the sinfulness of man. Then he proceeds to deal with solution or salvation of man from sin beginning with justification by grace through faith in Christ (Rom. 3:24-5:2). Later he deals with the relationship of regeneration with justification by faith (Rom. 6) and the relationship of justification and sanctification with the law of God (Rom. 7) and the relationship of sanctification to the work of the Spirit of God (Rom. 8:1-27) and then with the overall purpose of God (Rom. 8:28-36). All of these things equally fit under the umbrella term of "salvation" but not all are equal with each other in nature or in logical sequence or in time of application.

Romans 3:24-5:2 deals explicitly with justification by faith in Christ as a distinct aspect of salvation in general. It is a completed aspect at the point of faith in Christ and continues as a completed aspect throughout the Christian life. That is the argument presented by Paul and confirmed by the serious logical arguments he presents in Romans 3:24-5:2 as well as to the choice of tenses He uses versus the tenses he does not employ.

Now, that does not mean justification by faith occurs in a vacuum or in complete separation from other aspects of salvation in general. No, it has its place and logical relationship and time of application in relationship to Salvation as a whole.

It is the failure of Rome and Roman soteriology to distinguish between things that differ in nature, logical sequence and time of application in their overall view of salvation that I am challenging. However, even Rome distinguishes between regeneration and glorification in regard to the time of application to the person and to its nature and logical relationship does it not?

That is not true! He is in fact denying works as inclusive of grace and pitting them one against the other in regard to justification before God. In Romans 11:6 he clearly states they are antithetic to each other and cannot include one another.

Paul's response to the very analogy you use above is found in Romans 4:4. Works are like wages but grace is a gift and we are justified "without works" but not without grace (Rom. 3:24; 4:4-6).

This is nothing but human rationalization that attempts to repudiate the Word of God on this matter. I gave an exposition of Romans 4:11 in regard to what God's Word understands the relationship of a divine "sign" or "seal" with justification by faith and you don't even attempt to deal with it. Why? If you could you would! Hence, since you cannot your only resort is to human rationalization pitted against God's Word. If that is not so, then deal with the exposition and show by the immediate context why I am wrong instead of jumping out of that context and pitting scripture against scripture.
Rom.4:3- it was "credited'' to him as righteousness. God records what the person actually accomplished.

Have you ever heard of the expression "can't see the forrest for the tree in your face"? (no personal offence intended). Paul is explicitly repeating that justification before God is by faith "without works" over and over again. Justification before God is not without grace, without Christ or without Christ's personal works, or without the Holy Spirit or without regeneration but it is "without works" - YOUR works, - it is without your law keeping (Rom. 4:13-15) and it is without your personal input (Rom. 4:16-22).

Paul's argument is exclusive in Romans 4. Abraham lived before the Mosaic law and therefore his "works" cannot be defined as the works of the Mosaic law (Rom. 4:13-15) so "works" in Romans 4:11 must refer to his own personal efforts to be justified before God rather than some kind of Jewishness under law.

 

Hello ThinkingStuff! I noticed you continued our conversation here and I will do so when I'm able [Church tnite etc....] God bless and look forward to reading your post [and Biblicist too]

 

Biblicist, You misunderstand what the Catholic Church teaches, and i am not the best student that can explain it. All I know is that which the Bible tells me and that is "salvation',
is a gift of God and it depends on how we accept and use that free gift. In no way can i accept your Protestant way of acceptance of salvation ,as a " just accept Jesus in your heart' as a one-time cure all for eternal bliss , or "i'm born again ' or" have you accepted Jesus yet" kinda formular. No way is that the way the Bible explains it. Because in this verse of Phil. 2: 12-13 I read where "good works " done in grace , by the gift of God, whose grace works in us.

Eph. 2;8-9 ' For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing , it is the gift of God... not because of works , lest any man should boast ."

1st Cor.9 v 27, No, I drive my body and train it, for fear that , after having preached to others , I myself should be disqualified.

 

Look at my response to TS concerning the Catholic interpretation of the relationship of a "sign" and "seal" with justification. TS properly presented the Catholic view and the whole soteriology of Roman Catholicism will stand or fall on that very interpretation.

If a "sign" and "seal" of justification is also inclusive of justification then Rome's soteriology stands. However, if a "sign" and "seal" of justification is not inclusive of Justification then the whole soteriological framework of Rome comes crashing down.

As I demonstrated the Roman Catholic explanation is completely repudiated by Paul in Romans 4:11.

Second, you do not understand my view of salvation at all or you would not explain it the way you have. However, I can understand why you explain it that way because there are many who present it just in that manner, so I don't blame you.

For starters, I do not believe there is such a thing as a man who is justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works who is not also regenerated and producing the manifest fruits of regeneration which are "good works." Although, I don't confuse these two different aspects of salvation, I don't deny one exists without the other. That means I do not accept the profession of faith as genuine where there are no "good works" being manifested in that life.

However, those works are "fruits" or manifest evidence of regeneration making regeneration the cause not the effect of good works (Eph. 2:10 "created....UNTO good works").

Bottom line, those truly justified by faith are regenerated people who manifest "good works" or else there is no basis to recognize them as either justified or regenerated.

 

>"salvation', is a gift of God and it depends on how we accept and use that free gift.

Humans seem to have a problem handling gifts. When a gift is given, title passes and the giver has no legal or financial interest in the property. A parent gives a toy to a child and becomes angry when the child trashes it. It is not the parent's business to become angry. If the parent doesn't trust the child then maybe the toy should be loaned. Try it this Christmas and report your results.

A person I knew was 2 months behind in his electric bill went to the utility office to beg for mercy - new baby and winter weather. He was told his bill was paid up. The company could not tell him how or why. He suspected it was a typo and someone got cheated. Of someone he knew could have paid his bill. My point - if so, it was a done deal. The title to the money had transferred to my friend's account. He could not give it back if we wanted to.

So if God "Gives" us a "Gift" of eternal life it is a done deal. We can ignore it but there is no mechanism in place for returning it.

 

Biblicist, i am doing more harm in trying to defend the Catholic Church, i am just a neophyte and will let other more Biblical educated Catholics set you straight on this and other critical issues on salvation, etc. . I am not qualified to repeat any teaching, as i was taught by more qualified Catholics , believe me i would still be a Baptist Fundamantalists if it wasn't for the vast knowledge of the Catholic theologians and Catholic apologists, many who came from Protestant clergy/ theologians. It is very obvious that all teaching knowledge and authority was given only to the Catholic/Apostolic Church. It alone contains the "fullness of the Christian faith". Luke 10: 16. Not "one" verse can you find that supports any Protestant church ,while on the other hand i can point out many verses that support a "one" apostolic teaching universal Church. Many, many passages support the Apostolic Teaching Church that Jesus founded with the intention of that Church being One and Universal/ Catholic . I hope that one of the more qualified [ albeit greatly outnumbered by you Protestants ] Catholics on this forum come back and explain your misunderstanding of not only the Catholic Church but your dependence on a man-made concept called 'sola Scriptura'.

 

I must say from the outset that I appreciate getting to read your posts. As I stated in an earlier post, I have 9 families in my Church that came out of the Catholic Church [no recruiting either] and I have family that are in the Catholic Church and I always like to learn the hows and whys of people's theology--I can tell you that 100% of the people in my Church were in the RCC all their lives and they have, at best, very minimal knowledge of the Bible or any Bible doctrine--they will tell you that Bible study is not encouraged, and history would bear this out--not to get into a different discussion, but don't you think it seems odd the RCC Church persecuted Bible translators?

What you said here would be basic Arminian theory--I will say that works would constitute an evidence of faith, not a requirement--when you add any act of man as a requirement of salvation, it is tainted. This is certainly a point of contention even within Baptist ranks but it is Biblical:

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

I was raised in a Church that doesn't believe in eternal security, and if you believe man has anything to do with his/her salvation, then that would be the logical conclusion. However, Scripture teaches salvation by grace through faith--a gift from God--no works involved.

I'm going to have to stop here for the evening.....will get back to the rest! God bless

 

This is certainly my own personal experience--the more I study Scripture/history, the more Calvinistic I have become....
Not sure we have the same understanding of Total Depravity--I copied and pasted this from a reformed website:

Now whether we want to believe all that are not, the Scriptures are certainly clear--the definition of mans Total depravity is to teach us we can't save ourselves

Again this teaching [sanctifying grace as you call it] would be considered works salvation--TS you are either saved or you aren't--yes Scripture teaches he that endures to the end will be saved--all this means is there are no such things as "apostates" --someone who was TRULY born again and then forever turn away from the faith--I put people like that into the parable of the sower--weren't really saved and when the newness wore off, they were gone.

I asked the question because I was told the RCC's position is that ones' salvation depends upon partaking of the mass--which is how you are in "sanctifying grace" as you told me its called--again, this is a definition of works salvation which is not Biblical [Ephesians 2:8-9] --I read HA Ironsides Book on Revelation and he mentions the Catholic Service as being a mixture of Judaism, Heathenism and Christianity and your explanation seems to agree....the most important part of the OT Passover was the sign of salvation to come--the elements involved were just connected with obedience.....In the NT the key element is obedience period--we do this, as oft as we would, in remembrance of what Christ did for us at Calvary.

Well I asked this question and I'll ask it a different way--where were you converted and how? Maybe this will shed a little light for me to understand where you are today...

Ok I'll agree with you here except I'll say, they won't go to Heaven if they don't have Christ.....Now my question--you said "more often they tell them...." Who does that? I knew a young man who went to Catholic School for 13 yrs, went to mass every Sat night [so he could party and sleep in Sunday btw ] and I asked him a simple question, cause with his education he should know--I asked, if you died tonight, would you go to Heaven?--His first response was--well, which level? :smilewinkgrin: I told him I was kind of new at this so start me off at level 1.....well he hem hawed around about 10 seconds and then said, well if I live a good life, when I die everything will be ok.......Now I thought to myself, if he REALLY believed that, he should be scared to death! He was living like a HEATHEN!! But the lack of any ability to explain his spiritual condition was amazing considering his "education".....this is why I would find it hard to believe the RCC would tell anyone of their members they were going to hell as long as they were taking mass and giving, etc.....

 

So you make no distinction between "faith" that may be placed in someone or something and "faithfulness" which is descriptive of your own person?

Does Ephesians 2:8 say "by grace are ye saved BY FAITHFULNESS that bestows salvation upon us as a gift"? Or does it say "by grace are ye saved THROUGH FAITH and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God"????

Faith that justifies is faith "in" the faithfulness of Christ rather than "by" your own faithfulness "to" Christ.

The often but inaccurate accusation that this teaches a person can live in sin and yet be saved is a failure to distinguish between things that differ and things that "accompany salvation." There is no such thing as a justified man who is not also a regenerated man and our "good works" stem from regeneration in us on earth not justification before God by Christ's works in heaven.

 

Full Question
Why does the Roman Catholic Church teach the doctrine of "works righteousness," that through good works one can earn salvation?
Answer
The Catholic Church has never taught such a doctrine and, in fact, has constantly condemned the notion that men can earn or merit salvation. Catholic soteriology (salvation theology) is rooted in apostolic Tradition and Scripture and says that it is only by God's grace--completely unmerited by works--that one is saved.

The Church teaches that it's God's grace from beginning to end which justifies, sanctifies, and saves us. As Paul explains in Philippians 2:13, "God is the one, who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work."

Notice that Paul's words presuppose that the faithful Christian is not just desiring to be righteous, but is actively working toward it. This is the second half of the justification equation, and Protestants either miss or ignore it.

James 2:17 reminds us that "faith of itself, if it does not have work, is dead." In verse 24 James says, "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." And later: "For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead" (2:26).

The Council of Trent harmonizes the necessity of grace and works: "If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or by the teaching of the Law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema" (Session 6; can. 1).

The Council fathers continued by saying, "If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema" (Session 6: can. 9).

By the way, "let him be anathema" means "let him be excommunicated," not "let him be cursed to hell." The phrase was used in conciliar documents in a technical, theological sense, not in the same sense as the word "anathema" is found in Scripture. Don't let "Bible Christians" throw you for a loop on this one.

So, far from teaching a doctrine of "works righteousness" (that would be Pelagianism, which was condemned at the Council of Carthage in A.D. 418), the Catholic Church teaches the true, biblical doctrine of justification.

answered by Staff of Catholic Answers

 

In the above paragraph Rome makes the transition from grace to works by merging regenerative works into the doctrine of justification by faith "without works." As a result they merely perform mental gynastics and in fact are teaching salvation by works not by the Biblical meaning of grace but have made works inclusive of grace.

In particular, they have taken the work of the indwelling Holy Spriit IN and THROUGH us (Philip. 2:13) and made "faithfulness" equal to "faith" making OUR regenerative works (Eph. 2:10) inclusive with Christ's own works in the doctrine of Justification by faith.

Thus, they confuse what Christ did in His own body with what Christ does through our own body. They confuse "faith in" what Christ did for us in His own body with "faithfulness" or what we do in our own body for Christ.

They confuse regeneration and its fruits in OUR OWN PERSON and ON EARTH with justification and its fruits in CHRIST'S OWN PERSON and IN HEAVEN in our POSITION before God.

As I previously explain in some detail, James is simply denying there is such a thing as a man justified by faith that is without the fruits of regeneration or works. "Dead" versus life has to do with regeneration and works are the manifest fruits of life. James is looking at justification in its inseparable relationship with regeneration as Paul did in Romans 6. He is not looking at Justification as a separate and complete aspect of salvation as Paul did in Romans 3:24-5:2

One is justified by faith alone but not by faith which is alone as there are other things that "accompany salvation" by faith.

Justification by faith alone without works is in conjunction with the new birth which has predisposed his will to repent and beleive in the gospel as the sole hope of salvation.

They simply have no clue to the Biblical doctrines of justification or regeneration.

 

I hope you don't think that i fall for your twisted man-made interpretation of Scripture, because I don't, There is only "One" interpretation of Scripture and that is the "One ' Interpretation by Christ's Catholic Church , it has always maintained the same Interpretation from the 1st century. Your interpretation isn't any different from the other 30,000 different conflicting interpretations held by you Protestants. All claim that their interpretation is the correct one, not one of your Protestant interpretations is the correct one. Why is it you and others of your Protestant ilk can't show me one verse where Jesus gave your founder the authority to form his or her church? Same goes for the way you interpret the Holy Bible, give me a verse that tells us that your interpretation comes from the Authority of Jesus as He infused His Authority into Apostolic Authority, just one little verse please ??? And, please, no tap dancing around the question as you always do, just a verse please ?

 

Your response is typical of all who simply are unable to provide a Biblical response to prove their opponents are wrong. I will be glad to provide and defend the interpretation of scriptures that fully support my position.

 

I read it carefully and I have read the Catholic Catechism on this subject. I know what you believe and how you rationalize it. You confuse justification with regeneration and confuse faith with faithfulness and ultimately it is a confusion between grace and works as you come up with a definition of grace that is inclusive of works.

Again, either you did not understand what I said or you didn't read it carefully and just overlooked what I said. Here is what I said:

One is justified by faith alone but not by faith which is alone as there are other things that "accompany salvation" by faith.

Justification by faith alone without works is in conjunction with the new birth which has predisposed his will to repent and beleive in the gospel as the sole hope of salvation.

So your following commentary is a mischaractization of my position. Grace is not cheap as it cost God His only Son but salvation is "freely" mine by grace.