Questions and answers with Jeremiah2911 and others

[The Biblicist]

I don't know what you mean in the Bold. God does it. Can you answer my previous question please.

I mean does God directly quicken the dead sinner apart from the use of any instrumental means between God and that person (e.g. church, actions by church through ministry, preaching the gospel, etc.)? Remember, I am asking this in the context of PRIOR to faith, PRIOR to sacraments.

By "judicial life" I mean previously we were judicially condemned to death as this is the sentence of the law against sin. Judicial life is the reversal of that sentence from condemnation and death to justification and life. Purely a reversal of legal status and sentence.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I mean does God directly quicken the dead sinner apart from the use of any instrumental means between God and that person (e.g. church, actions by church through ministry, preaching the gospel, etc.)? Remember, I am asking this in the context of PRIOR to faith, PRIOR to sacraments.

Yes. God pre-empts the action before anything else. Someone can preach all day long to you and unless you are quickened it wouldn't mean a thing. And by quickened I mean the Holy Spirit infusing you with Grace.

By "judicial life" I mean previously we were judicially condemned to death as this is the sentence of the law against sin. Judicial life is the reversal of that sentence from condemnation and death to justification and life. Purely a reversal of legal status and sentence.

Don't you believe in that we are more than just judicially condemned to death? That we are condemmed to death indeed. That the real form is real death? In which case a reversal of that situation is an actual raising to life? Rather than just declarative?

 

[The Biblicist]

Don't you believe in that we are more than just judicially condemned to death? That we are condemmed to death indeed. That the real form is real death? In which case a reversal of that situation is an actual raising to life? Rather than just declarative?

Yes, but the basis for real death is violation of God's law and thus the sentence of death precedes real death. Hence, salvation is the reversal of both. Reversal of the sentence, as well as, the consequence of the sentence.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes, but the basis for real death is violation of God's law and thus the sentence of death precedes real death. Hence, salvation is the reversal of both. Reversal of the sentence, as well as, the consequence of the sentence.

Don't you think the basis for real death is a violation of God's will. I'm thinking of original sin here. God did say you shall not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And in one sense I understand it being a law however it was his will that was countermanded. I'm being speculative here so bare with me. But when I think of law I think of the Mosaic Covenant which is law based. However, this covenant wasn't in place in the garden. In fact what covenant can we say was in place in the Garden? Like I said, I'm speculating.

 

[The Biblicist]

Don't you think the basis for real death is a violation of God's will. I'm thinking of original sin here. God did say you shall not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And in one sense I understand it being a law however it was his will that was countermanded. I'm being speculative here so bare with me. But when I think of law I think of the Mosaic Covenant which is law based. However, this covenant wasn't in place in the garden. In fact what covenant can we say was in place in the Garden? Like I said, I'm speculating.

Yes, sin is violation/rebellion of God's revealed will. However, more importantly such rebellion is not defined by any word or action we might do or not do but the character of the intent behind the action. Ultimately, sin is defined as the wrong intent behind anything you say or do. The only right intent behind anything you say or do is "for the glory of God" and that is why "love" is the fulfilling of the law. Hence, all have sinned because all that man thinks, says or does "come short of the glory of God" as his intent.

Therefore it does not matter what revelation of God's will is broken (eating of a tree, rejecting God as revealed in nature, violation of His will revealed in conscience; violation of His will revealed in covenant law of Moses).

The reason why all the law is broken when one point is broken is because there is a deeper violation that occurs concerning the intent of the heart. Whatever we do or say must be by intent for the glory of God and when that is not the intent the whole purpose of the law is violated.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes, sin is violation/rebellion of God's revealed will. However, more importantly such rebellion is not defined by any word or action we might do or not do but the character of the intent behind the action. Ultimately, sin is defined as the wrong intent behind anything you say or do. The only right intent behind anything you say or do is "for the glory of God" and that is why "love" is the fulfilling of the law. Hence, all have sinned because all that man thinks, says or does "come short of the glory of God" as his intent.

Therefore it does not matter what revelation of God's will is broken (eating of a tree, rejecting God as revealed in nature, violation of His will revealed in conscience; violation of His will revealed in covenant law of Moses).

The reason why all the law is broken when one point is broken is because there is a deeper violation that occurs concerning the intent of the heart. Whatever we do or say must be by intent for the glory of God and when that is not the intent the whole purpose of the law is violated.

Ok then. Then you and I both agree it goes beyond Judicial.

 

[The Biblicist]

Alright, let us proceed to another point. Thus far, you have man quickened directly by God apart from any instrumental means so that he can choose to respond in faith prior to baptism and as a result of choosing to believe that initial life is confirmed through faith. - Correct?

QUESTION: Is there a possibility that the temporary quickening which provides ability to believe could be rejected by a response of unbelief rather than faith?


You have him responding in faith prior to baptism but then you have God advancing in baptism what was begun prior to baptism. I say "advancing" rather than "completing" because you assert that justification is simply progressive and never completed until he stands approved by God at judgment "according to his works." - Correct?

QUESTION: Now here is the next question. At the point of faith PRIOR to baptism is he also at that precise point INITIALLY justified OR does faith exist without INITIAL justification until "IN" the act of baptism?

I use the word "initial" because you have already stated that justifiation is progressive and never completed until judgment.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Alright, let us proceed to another point. Thus far, you have man quickened directly by God apart from any instrumental means so that he can choose to respond in faith prior to baptism and as a result of choosing to believe that initial life is confirmed through faith. - Correct?

Yes.

QUESTION: Is there a possibility that the temporary quickening which provides ability to believe could be rejected by a response of unbelief rather than faith?

Yes though not reasonable

You have him responding in faith prior to baptism but then you have God advancing in baptism what was begun prior to baptism. I say "advancing" rather than "completing" because you assert that justification is simply progressive and never completed until he stands approved by God at judgment "according to his works." - Correct?

nope. According to God's works which are revealed in the believer by the believers obedience.

QUESTION: Now here is the next question. At the point of faith PRIOR to baptism is he also at that precise point INITIALLY justified OR does faith exist without INITIAL justification until "IN" the act of baptism?

I'm not sure what you are trying to ask.
I use the word "initial" because you have already stated that justifiation is progressive and never completed until judgment.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes.

Yes though not reasonable

nope. According to God's works which are revealed in the believer by the believers obedience.

Of course how foolish of me to forget the quintessential crux of the Vatican's definition of good works. Alright, let me back up and reword it:

You have him responding in faith prior to baptism but then you have God advancing in baptism what was begun prior to baptism. I say "advancing" rather than "completing" because you assert that justification is simply progressive and never completed until he stands approved by God at judgment "according to God's works which are revealed in the beleiver by the beleiver's works." - Correct?

QUESTION: When does INITIAL justification begin? With the point of faith BEFORE baptism or not until with faith manifested IN baptism?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Of course how foolish of me to forget the quintessential crux of the Vatican's definition of good works. Alright, let me back up and reword it:

You have him responding in faith prior to baptism but then you have God advancing in baptism what was begun prior to baptism. I say "advancing" rather than "completing" because you assert that justification is simply progressive and never completed until he stands approved by God at judgment "according to God's works which are revealed in the beleiver by the beleiver's works." - Correct?

Again not quite. Let me rephrase it for you. "according to God's works which are revealed in the believer by the believers obedience or cooperation. There, I threw in a good word Protestants like to jump all over. However, note I do have biblical precidence for it.

QUESTION: When does INITIAL justification begin? With the point of faith BEFORE baptism or not until IN with faith manifested in baptism?

Justification is justification. Here I will explain the Catholic view so that you get the idea.

1)

Since justification as an application of the Redemption to the individual presupposes the fall of the entire human race, therefore Justification begins with the fundamental statement that original sin has weakened and deflected, but not entirely destroyed or extinguished the freedom of the human will

2)

The Children of Adam could not of themselves arise from their fall nor shake off the bonds of sin, death, and Satan. Neither the natural faculties left in man, nor the observance of the Jewish Law could achieve this.

3)

Since God alone was able to free us from this great misery, He sent in His infinite love His only begotten Son Jesus Christ, Who by His bitter passion and death on the cross redeemed fallen man and thus became the Mediator between God and man. But if the grace of Redemption merited by Christ is to be appropriated by the individual, he must be "regenerated by God", that is he must be justified.

4)

Justification denotes that change or transformation in the soul by which man is transferred from the state of original sin, in which as a child of Adam he was born, to that of grace and Divine sonship through Jesus Christ, the second Adam, our Redeemer.

5)

In the New Law this justification cannot, according to Christ's precept, be effected except at the fountain of regeneration, that is, by the baptism of water

6)

This entire process receives its first impulse from the supernatural grace of vocation (absolutely independent of man's merit)

7)

and requires an intrinsic union of the Divine and human action, of grace and moral freedom of election, in such a manner, however, that the will can resist, and with full liberty reject the influence of grace

8)

and requires an intrinsic union of the Divine and human action, of grace and moral freedom of election, in such a manner, however, that the will can resist, and with full liberty reject the influence of grace...Comparing Bible and Tradition they could not experience any serious difficulty in showing that fiduciary faith was an absolutely new invention and that the faith of justification was identical with a firm belief in the truths and promises of Divine revelation

9)

The next step is a genuine sorrow for all sin with the resolution to begin a new life by receiving holy baptism and by observing the commandments of God. The process of justification is then brought to a close by the baptism of water, inasmuch as by the grace of this sacrament the catechumen is freed from sin (original and personal) and its punishments, and is made a child of God.

10)

Since our Divine adoption and friendship with God is based on perfect love of God or charity (cf. Galatians 5:6; 1 Corinthians 13; James 2:17 sqq.), dead faith devoid of charity (fides informis) cannot possess any justifying power. Only such faith as is active in charity and good works (fides caritate formata) can justify man, and this even before the actual reception of baptism or penance, although not without a desire of the sacrament (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, cap. iv, xiv). But, not to close the gates of heaven against pagans and those non-Catholics, who without their fault do not know or do not recognize the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Catholic theologians unanimously hold that the desire to receive these sacraments is implicitly contained in the serious resolve to do all that God has commanded, even if His holy will should not become known in every detail.

 

[The Biblicist]

Again not quite. Let me rephrase it for you. "according to God's works which are revealed in the believer by the believers obedience or cooperation. There, I threw in a good word Protestants like to jump all over. However, note I do have biblical precidence for it.

You have him responding in faith prior to baptism but then you have God advancing in baptism what was begun prior to baptism. I say "advancing" rather than "completing" because you assert that justification is simply progressive and never completed until he stands approved by God at judgment "according to God's works which are revealed in the believer by the believers obedience or cooperation." - Correct?

Justification is justification. Here I will explain the Catholic view so that you get the idea.

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10)

I am not asking what IS justification but WHEN justification BEGINS! According to your own step by step process you have the following points to place its beginning point

1. Dead before sustitation - Does it begin Here?

2. Quickened but without faith - Does it begin here?

3. Quickened with faith but BEFORE baptism - Does it begin here?

4. Quickened with faith IN baptism - Does it begin here?

 

[The Biblicist]

You have him responding in faith prior to baptism but then you have God advancing in baptism what was begun prior to baptism. I say "advancing" rather than "completing" because you assert that justification is simply progressive and never completed until he stands approved by God at judgment "according to God's works which are revealed in the believer by the believers obedience or cooperation." - Correct?



I am not asking what IS justification but WHEN justification BEGINS! According to your own step by step process you have the following points to place its beginning point

1. Dead before sustitation - Does it begin Here?

2. Quickened but without faith - Does it begin here?

3. Quickened with faith but BEFORE baptism - Does it begin here?

4. Quickened with faith IN baptism - Does it begin here?

Come on TS where are you? At what point does justification begin? At point #1? At point #2? At point #3 or at point #4? It must BEGIN at one of these points for it to begin at all.

 

[The Biblicist]

You have him responding in faith prior to baptism but then you have God advancing in baptism what was begun prior to baptism. I say "advancing" rather than "completing" because you assert that justification is simply progressive and never completed until he stands approved by God at judgment "according to God's works which are revealed in the believer by the believers obedience or cooperation." - Correct?



I am not asking what IS justification but WHEN justification BEGINS! According to your own step by step process you have the following points to place its beginning point

1. Dead before sustitation - Does it begin Here?

2. Quickened but without faith - Does it begin here?

3. Quickened with faith but BEFORE baptism - Does it begin here?

4. Quickened with faith IN baptism - Does it begin here?

Where are you TS? Perhaps busy? When you get the time, please answer my question above.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Where are you TS? Perhaps busy? When you get the time, please answer my question above.

Sorry, its that time of year especially on the week ends that I get pretty busy. Where does justification begin? It begins in the mind and the heart of God. He begins the process.

 

[The Biblicist]

Sorry, its that time of year especially on the week ends that I get pretty busy. Where does justification begin? It begins in the mind and the heart of God. He begins the process.

This is just wonderful but doesn't regeneration, glorification and every thing else start there too (Rom. 8:28-30)???????

Get real!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This is just wonderful but doesn't regeneration, glorification and every thing else start there too (Rom. 8:28-30)???????

Get real!

Yes they all do. So, if justification starts with God what then is your beef?

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes they all do. So, if justification starts with God what then is your beef?

You are playing the politician and you know it. You know very well what I am asking. I am not asking where does justification/glorification/regeneration begin in God but where does justification begin in man in regard to the four points we have agreed upon!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You are playing the politician and you know it. You know very well what I am asking. I am not asking where does justification/glorification/regeneration begin in God but where does justification begin in man in regard to the four points we have agreed upon!

As far as I am aware we haven't agreed on a specific 4 points. However reviewing your post, a few post back, you listed for points.

I am not asking what IS justification but WHEN justification BEGINS! According to your own step by step process you have the following points to place its beginning point

1. Dead before sustitation - Does it begin Here?

2. Quickened but without faith - Does it begin here?

3. Quickened with faith but BEFORE baptism - Does it begin here?

4. Quickened with faith IN baptism - Does it begin here?

I'm not sure thats how I layed it out. However, I need some help from you. Can you explain to me what you mean by point 1. Are you saying when you are dead in sin and God elects you? or are you saying the person is just dead? I would say its starts at election but then I'm not sure that is what you mean.

 

[The Biblicist]

As far as I am aware we haven't agreed on a specific 4 points. However reviewing your post, a few post back, you listed for points.

I'm not sure thats how I layed it out. However, I need some help from you. Can you explain to me what you mean by point 1. Are you saying when you are dead in sin and God elects you? or are you saying the person is just dead? I would say its starts at election but then I'm not sure that is what you mean.

Ok, it is quite obvious you are finished discussing this subject. All you have to do is go back and read your own posts to see that we have agreed to these four points as those four points were simply drawn conclusions from your own posts. You explain the first point in your own posts, all I did was simply restate it and you confirmed it. All I have done is simply repeated them. Read your own posts if you want an explanation as I did not furnish any explanations, all I did was confirm YOURS!

Thank you for the discussion. This last question would have exposed your position as irrational and false and that is precisely why you are playing the political game now.

If you would have placed it at point one you would have a spiritual dead man justified

If you would have placed it at point two you would have living but unbelieving man justified

If you would have placed it at point three you would have an unbaptized man justified by faith

If you would have placed it at point four you would have had a spiritually alive believing man in point three but not justified.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Ok, it is quite obvious you are finished discussing this subject. All you have to do is go back and read your own posts to see that we have agreed to these four points as those four points were simply drawn conclusions from your own posts. You explain the first point in your own posts, all I did was simply restate it and you confirmed it. All I have done is simply repeated them. Read your own posts if you want an explanation as I did not furnish any explanations, all I did was confirm YOURS!

I don't know where your hostility is coming from. I re-read my post and yours and it seems we've agreed that Justification is beyond just being judicial. I re-read my defining Justification to you. And I re-read where you agree that I view justification as a process. I did not agree that your point's were my own. They are your points which you have interpreted according to you from my explanation of Justification. So your Hostility seems to be self inflicted irritation rather than at me.

Thank you for the discussion. This last question would have exposed your position as irrational and false and that is precisely why you are playing the political game now.

I'm not playing a political anything. I've expressed clearly what I believe and what the Catholic Church teaches with justification. I think that you are irritated because neither I no the Catholic Church falls into the definition you place upon it. You have a prejudicial view of certain aspects and want to maintain them rather than accept the truth that things are quite as you have believed them to be.

If you would have placed it at point one you would have a spiritual dead man justified

Exactly why I wanted you to define what you were talking about. However, as I've said the process begins at election and is brought to completion at baptism and final judgement. It seems you were attempt to put a trap for me like the Pharisees attempted with Jesus. Rather then being pure in your attempt to understand a certain consept.

If you would have placed it at point two you would have living but unbelieving man justified

But then you are saying Justification isn't a process. If I had placed it at point two where I initially thought I would, as you phrased the question, be placing the initial part of Justification at this point. However, that isn't correct either since it is at God's election.

If you would have placed it at point three you would have an unbaptized man justified by faith

Which I don't have a problem with however. Though the man would end up in heaven he wouldn't have experienced the fruition of his justification.

If you would have placed it at point four you would have had a man believing in point three but not justified.

You cannot be justified without faith. I don't know what you were thinking here.