-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Justification and sanctification
- Thread starter Ps104_33
- Start date
Robert Nicholson
New Member
My understanding is that Justification refers to the sinner being cleared of all guilt the moment he/she places faith in Christ. "Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" Romans 5:1 In Romans 3 we find that "all have sinned" in other words in the law court of God we are found guilty regardless of our race or creed. However, in chapter 5 we find that there was one who was willing to bear our guilt "But God commendeth his love toward us, in tha, while we were yet sinners Christ died for us" V. 8
In 1 Cor. 6:11 we see that there is a connection between sanctification and justification.
"And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
Sanctification means to be set apart. We have been cleared of all guilt (justified) and set apart for God (sanctified)to bring glory and honour to him. We are set apart by his Spirit and I believe there is a practical side in which we set ourselves apart for God.
In our baptism we are declaring this sanctification as we identify with the death, buriel and resurrection of Christ and in this act of obedience we are proclaiming that I have died unto sin and made alive unto Christ and by his grace it is my desire to live for him as my Lord.
Robert
In 1 Cor. 6:11 we see that there is a connection between sanctification and justification.
"And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
Sanctification means to be set apart. We have been cleared of all guilt (justified) and set apart for God (sanctified)to bring glory and honour to him. We are set apart by his Spirit and I believe there is a practical side in which we set ourselves apart for God.
In our baptism we are declaring this sanctification as we identify with the death, buriel and resurrection of Christ and in this act of obedience we are proclaiming that I have died unto sin and made alive unto Christ and by his grace it is my desire to live for him as my Lord.
Robert
You cant clear it up any better than that, Robert. That was a very god explanation. I look at it that Justification is all God and in Sanctafication God sets us apart but I believe by living a holy life we set ouselves apart for God's service. Justification=salvation and Sanctification=holiness.
The reason I asked was I,ve read some posts from Catholics where they made the claim that justification and sanctification mean the same thing.
The reason I asked was I,ve read some posts from Catholics where they made the claim that justification and sanctification mean the same thing.
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Justification is our being brought into a right relationship before the Father by the work of Jesus Christ in his life, passion, death, and resurrection.
Sanctification is our being conformed to the image of Jesus Christ by the work of the Holy Spirit.
When God justifies us, he does what he declares: he makes his saints "just" by sanctifying them through the Spirit of Jesus.
The Son justifies the sinner while the Spirit sanctifies the sinner. These are two verbs, which are to be attributed to two separate persons in the Godhead - and account for the same reality: our adoption as sons and daughters of God.
"for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live ... we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies." (St. Paul - Epistle to the Romans 8:13.23)
"Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord." (Epistle to the Hebrews 12:14)
God bless,
Carson
Sanctification is our being conformed to the image of Jesus Christ by the work of the Holy Spirit.
When God justifies us, he does what he declares: he makes his saints "just" by sanctifying them through the Spirit of Jesus.
The Son justifies the sinner while the Spirit sanctifies the sinner. These are two verbs, which are to be attributed to two separate persons in the Godhead - and account for the same reality: our adoption as sons and daughters of God.
"for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live ... we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies." (St. Paul - Epistle to the Romans 8:13.23)
"Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord." (Epistle to the Hebrews 12:14)
God bless,
Carson
Bible-belted
New Member
Justification is a forensic term, denoting the "aqcuittal" of the accused. In terms of the Christian, justification results in our being delcared Righteous before God our Judge; our sins are not counted against us. The rightoeuness attributed to us is not our own, but that of Christ Jesus, He who bore our sins in vicariously on the Cross. Justification then results in a new status of the believer before God.
Sanctification is very closely related to Justifcation (but not to be confused). Justifcation is the basis of and the guarantor of sanctifcation. Sanctification is more a moral, rather than positinal (as in justifcation) concept (though see 2Thess 2:13; 1Peter 1:2 for example). Sanctification of the believer is an event that is in the past, hence why we are called saints. On the other hand it is also an ongoing and a future event.
Sanctification is very closely related to Justifcation (but not to be confused). Justifcation is the basis of and the guarantor of sanctifcation. Sanctification is more a moral, rather than positinal (as in justifcation) concept (though see 2Thess 2:13; 1Peter 1:2 for example). Sanctification of the believer is an event that is in the past, hence why we are called saints. On the other hand it is also an ongoing and a future event.
Carson,
Is a Catholic being "justified" everytime he takes mass or is he being "sanctified"?
In other words, Baptists believe justification is a one time event and sanctification is ongoing as far as living a holy life is concerned, but if I'm not mistaken Roman Catholics believe that justification is an ongoing process. Am I wrong?
Is justification something that God does or is it something that we have a hand in?
Is a Catholic being "justified" everytime he takes mass or is he being "sanctified"?
In other words, Baptists believe justification is a one time event and sanctification is ongoing as far as living a holy life is concerned, but if I'm not mistaken Roman Catholics believe that justification is an ongoing process. Am I wrong?
Is justification something that God does or is it something that we have a hand in?
I think I'll just let One of the most noteworthy RC apologists of today explain the Catholic understanding on justification:
"What did Christ's suffering and death actually accomplish that allowed the Father to provide the human race with salvation? Did Christ take within himself the sin and guilt of mankind and suffer the specific punishment for that sin and guilt, as Protestants contend? The answer is no...Christ did not take upon himself the entire punishment required of man for sin. Rather, Scripture teaches only that Christ became a 'propitiation,' a 'sin offering,' or a 'sacrifice' for sins...Essentially, this means that Christ, because he was guiltless, sin-free and in favor with God, could offer himself up as a means of persuading God to relent of his angry wrath against the sins of mankind. Sin destroys God's creation. God, who is a passionate and sensitive being, is angry against man for harming the creation. Anger against sin shows the personal side of God, for sin is a personal offense against him. We must not picture God as an unemotional courtroom judge who is personally unharmed by the sin of the offender brought before him. God is personally offended by sin and thus he needs to be personally appeased in order to offer a personal forgiveness. In keeping with his divine principles, his personal nature, and the magnitude of the sins of man, the only thing that God would allow to appease him was the suffering and death of the sinless representative of mankind, namely, Christ (Robert Sungenis, Not By Faith Alone (Santa Barbara: Queenship, 1997), pp. 107-108).
"What did Christ's suffering and death actually accomplish that allowed the Father to provide the human race with salvation? Did Christ take within himself the sin and guilt of mankind and suffer the specific punishment for that sin and guilt, as Protestants contend? The answer is no...Christ did not take upon himself the entire punishment required of man for sin. Rather, Scripture teaches only that Christ became a 'propitiation,' a 'sin offering,' or a 'sacrifice' for sins...Essentially, this means that Christ, because he was guiltless, sin-free and in favor with God, could offer himself up as a means of persuading God to relent of his angry wrath against the sins of mankind. Sin destroys God's creation. God, who is a passionate and sensitive being, is angry against man for harming the creation. Anger against sin shows the personal side of God, for sin is a personal offense against him. We must not picture God as an unemotional courtroom judge who is personally unharmed by the sin of the offender brought before him. God is personally offended by sin and thus he needs to be personally appeased in order to offer a personal forgiveness. In keeping with his divine principles, his personal nature, and the magnitude of the sins of man, the only thing that God would allow to appease him was the suffering and death of the sinless representative of mankind, namely, Christ (Robert Sungenis, Not By Faith Alone (Santa Barbara: Queenship, 1997), pp. 107-108).
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Is a Catholic being "justified" everytime he takes mass or is he being "sanctified"?
Takes mass? I'm unfamiliar with this phrase.
Mass is a word that designates one form of Catholic worship, and this is the Western term for what the East call "the divine liturgy". Catholics do not take or grab worship.
Our sanctification increases whenever we are made more holy by the grace of God. So, if you go to worship and leave with greater virtue in your life than when you entered the chapel, then the answer to your question is "yes".
In other words, Baptists believe justification is a one time event and sanctification is ongoing as far as living a holy life is concerned, but if I'm not mistaken Roman Catholics believe that justification is an ongoing process. Am I wrong?
No, you're not wrong. You are correct. Just like St. Paul, the Catholic Church affirms that our justification entails an ongoing process of adoption.
Listen to the words of Paul concerning our salvation, "for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live ... we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies." (St. Paul - Epistle to the Romans 8:13.23)
Paul speaks of our sanctification as a matter of salvation and of our adoption as something that we are still waiting for. This language of Paul fits hand in glove with the timeless Catholic teaching of justification, but it must be molded around the Protestant preconception of Sola Fide. Numerous Protestant pastors are being shown this around the U.S.A. and are entering the Catholic Church in surprising numbers.
In both Protestant and Catholic theology, we are justified when we are adopted into God's family (the Church) as sons in the Son. It is for the sake of Christ that we are saved because we are adopted as God's children "in Christ".
The Protestant must affirm that this act of adoption occurs once and that this adoption is only a legal adoption. In other words, we do not really share the divine nature as children share the nature of their parents. The Protestant believes that this adoption is merely forensic or legal.
The Catholic would show that the Protestant understanding does two things: (1) it stops short of the reality of what the New Covenant is, and (2) it is not what the Bible teaches in the New Testament, namely in Paul.
Is justification something that God does or is it something that we have a hand in?
Justification is something that God does. You cannot justify yourself before the Father. Believing such is a heresy, which has been fought long and hard by the Catholic Church.
If we could justify ourselves before the Father, then we would not need the Saviour.
God bless,
Carson
[ August 24, 2002, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
Takes mass? I'm unfamiliar with this phrase.
Mass is a word that designates one form of Catholic worship, and this is the Western term for what the East call "the divine liturgy". Catholics do not take or grab worship.
Our sanctification increases whenever we are made more holy by the grace of God. So, if you go to worship and leave with greater virtue in your life than when you entered the chapel, then the answer to your question is "yes".
In other words, Baptists believe justification is a one time event and sanctification is ongoing as far as living a holy life is concerned, but if I'm not mistaken Roman Catholics believe that justification is an ongoing process. Am I wrong?
No, you're not wrong. You are correct. Just like St. Paul, the Catholic Church affirms that our justification entails an ongoing process of adoption.
Listen to the words of Paul concerning our salvation, "for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live ... we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies." (St. Paul - Epistle to the Romans 8:13.23)
Paul speaks of our sanctification as a matter of salvation and of our adoption as something that we are still waiting for. This language of Paul fits hand in glove with the timeless Catholic teaching of justification, but it must be molded around the Protestant preconception of Sola Fide. Numerous Protestant pastors are being shown this around the U.S.A. and are entering the Catholic Church in surprising numbers.
In both Protestant and Catholic theology, we are justified when we are adopted into God's family (the Church) as sons in the Son. It is for the sake of Christ that we are saved because we are adopted as God's children "in Christ".
The Protestant must affirm that this act of adoption occurs once and that this adoption is only a legal adoption. In other words, we do not really share the divine nature as children share the nature of their parents. The Protestant believes that this adoption is merely forensic or legal.
The Catholic would show that the Protestant understanding does two things: (1) it stops short of the reality of what the New Covenant is, and (2) it is not what the Bible teaches in the New Testament, namely in Paul.
Is justification something that God does or is it something that we have a hand in?
Justification is something that God does. You cannot justify yourself before the Father. Believing such is a heresy, which has been fought long and hard by the Catholic Church.
If we could justify ourselves before the Father, then we would not need the Saviour.
God bless,
Carson
[ August 24, 2002, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
R
Ruht
Guest
Justification, as well as sanctification, are both things which only God can do, and which he does through Jesus Christ the moment one is saved.
"But of HIM are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made UNTO US wisdom, and RIGHTEOUSNESS, and SANCTIFICATION, and REDEMPTION: That, according as it is written, he that glorieth, LET HIM GLORY IN THE LORD." - I Corinthians 1:31
God will not allow man to glory in himself, so therefore all things, including "justification" and "sanctification" are given to us because of what Christ did, not because of anything we do other than simply accepting that which Christ has done for us.
However, men have trouble with grace, they think it foolish. So therefore men, through their natural understanding, try to get these things - either all of them or some of them - through their own efforts of righteousness.
But they labor in vain.
God bless.
Robert Nicholson
New Member
Brother Ruht:
It goes against our natural pride to acknowledge that all we are and have is in Christ alone. Even though we are saved from the penalty of sin the day we trusted Christ, our daily salvation is by the Holy Spirit with whom we are sealed and our triumph as overcomers is only found when we continue to rest in him by faith and look to him to guide us through the challenges of life.
Saved and Kept by his power
Robert
It goes against our natural pride to acknowledge that all we are and have is in Christ alone. Even though we are saved from the penalty of sin the day we trusted Christ, our daily salvation is by the Holy Spirit with whom we are sealed and our triumph as overcomers is only found when we continue to rest in him by faith and look to him to guide us through the challenges of life.
Saved and Kept by his power
Robert
R
Ruht
Guest
Amen. And we don't even really have to "look to him," as he is always looking after us no matter where we go, or what we do. For even when we try to leave his presence, he is there remaining faithful to his children, always turning us back towards him. Such is the new birth and the eternal covenant of God. Such is salvation.
"O Lord, thou hast searched me and known me. Thou knowest my downsitting and my uprising, thou understandeth my thought afar off. Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether. Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it. Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or wither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me." - Psalm 139:1-11
God bless.
Bible-belted
New Member
Carson,
There is an aful lot between Ro. 8:13, and 8:23.
As for the verses themselves, you miosundestabd 8:13. Paul is not saying that our justifcation is ongoing. Justification is a very final thing.
In 8:13, Paul's point is simple, though given you are RC I can see why you would miss it. RCs typically think that the protestant position onm justification leads to moral laxity. However this is not so. The truth is that Protestants do affirm the need for resisting the flesh. They also afirm Paul's point here, which is, simply that the believer, thuogh fully and finally justifed by faith, is not free from the responsibility to "put to death the practices of the body" but rather is most certainly to make every effort to do so, given that, by the indwelling fo the Spirit, the believer is ABLE to do so. In this passage you see a typically Pauline tension between the imperative (you must) and the indicative (you can / you are).
8:23 is even firmer on justification as understood by protestantism. After all in ths verse we are told we have the "firdt fruits" Spirit evn though we await the redemption of our bodies. This means that we have a down payment, a deposit, a pledge, a guarantee that the remaining stages of salvation will be completed in us.
Be careful of those elipses.
There is an aful lot between Ro. 8:13, and 8:23.
As for the verses themselves, you miosundestabd 8:13. Paul is not saying that our justifcation is ongoing. Justification is a very final thing.
In 8:13, Paul's point is simple, though given you are RC I can see why you would miss it. RCs typically think that the protestant position onm justification leads to moral laxity. However this is not so. The truth is that Protestants do affirm the need for resisting the flesh. They also afirm Paul's point here, which is, simply that the believer, thuogh fully and finally justifed by faith, is not free from the responsibility to "put to death the practices of the body" but rather is most certainly to make every effort to do so, given that, by the indwelling fo the Spirit, the believer is ABLE to do so. In this passage you see a typically Pauline tension between the imperative (you must) and the indicative (you can / you are).
8:23 is even firmer on justification as understood by protestantism. After all in ths verse we are told we have the "firdt fruits" Spirit evn though we await the redemption of our bodies. This means that we have a down payment, a deposit, a pledge, a guarantee that the remaining stages of salvation will be completed in us.
Be careful of those elipses.
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Latreia,
There is an aful lot between Ro. 8:13, and 8:23.
Yes, there sure is.
As for the verses themselves, you miosundestabd 8:13. Paul is not saying that our justifcation is ongoing. Justification is a very final thing.
That's what I would expect for you to believe, and I would expect for you to disagree with how I present Paul.
In 8:13, Paul's point is simple, though given you are RC I can see why you would miss it.
Of course, because I'm a feebleminded "Roman Catholic", I must misunderstand the simplicity of Paul's point.
There just isn't enough room for Carson Weber, a Catholic, to be a student of Scripture, to have studied Romans in-depth.
RCs typically think that the protestant position onm justification leads to moral laxity.
This may be typical in your experience. But, I assure you, I am not your typical Catholic, and I don't expect for your understanding of justification to lead you to moral laxity.
However this is not so. The truth is that Protestants do affirm the need for resisting the flesh.
It's a nice thing to do isn't it? But, is your resistance of the flesh necessary unto salvation? Is your very justification dependent upon whether you choose the flesh or the spirit in the future? Just how much of a necessity are you affirming here?
They also affirm Paul's point here, which is, simply that the believer, though fully and finally justified by faith, is not free from the responsibility to "put to death the practices of the body" but rather is most certainly to make every effort to do so, given that, by the indwelling fo the Spirit, the believer is ABLE to do so. In this passage you see a typically Pauline tension between the imperative (you must) and the indicative (you can / you are).
Paul is clear enough in his own words: "if you live according to the flesh, you will die, but if by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live". This is a matter of life and death to Paul. If Paul's words are "simple", then leave them by themself. Simply present them.
8:23 is even firmer on justification as understood by protestantism. After all in ths verse we are told we have the "firdt fruits" Spirit evn though we await the redemption of our bodies. This means that we have a down payment, a deposit, a pledge, a guarantee that the remaining stages of salvation will be completed in us.
How can your salvation not be complete if you are already saved? Is your salvation a one-time-event or is it not?
Paul tells us that we "wait for adoption". If you are adopted in a forensic way through a one-time legal declaration, then there is no need to wait for further adoption as a child of God.
The Catholic understanding is that our adoption (which is our justification) is a process. We grow in sonship. The Protestant understanding is that our adoption is not a process, but a single event that is followed by sanctification. We are declared sons in the Son at once, and sanctification is a nice and wonderful process that helps prove our past justification.
Also, in verse 17, Paul tells us that we are "joint heirs with Christ, if only we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him".
Didn't Christ do it all on the cross? Are we not to have faith alone in what Christ did in order to be saved? Or must we suffer with Christ in addition to trusting in Christ? Sola Fide? Not according to Paul.
God bless,
Carson
There is an aful lot between Ro. 8:13, and 8:23.
Yes, there sure is.
As for the verses themselves, you miosundestabd 8:13. Paul is not saying that our justifcation is ongoing. Justification is a very final thing.
That's what I would expect for you to believe, and I would expect for you to disagree with how I present Paul.
In 8:13, Paul's point is simple, though given you are RC I can see why you would miss it.
Of course, because I'm a feebleminded "Roman Catholic", I must misunderstand the simplicity of Paul's point.
There just isn't enough room for Carson Weber, a Catholic, to be a student of Scripture, to have studied Romans in-depth.
RCs typically think that the protestant position onm justification leads to moral laxity.
This may be typical in your experience. But, I assure you, I am not your typical Catholic, and I don't expect for your understanding of justification to lead you to moral laxity.
However this is not so. The truth is that Protestants do affirm the need for resisting the flesh.
It's a nice thing to do isn't it? But, is your resistance of the flesh necessary unto salvation? Is your very justification dependent upon whether you choose the flesh or the spirit in the future? Just how much of a necessity are you affirming here?
They also affirm Paul's point here, which is, simply that the believer, though fully and finally justified by faith, is not free from the responsibility to "put to death the practices of the body" but rather is most certainly to make every effort to do so, given that, by the indwelling fo the Spirit, the believer is ABLE to do so. In this passage you see a typically Pauline tension between the imperative (you must) and the indicative (you can / you are).
Paul is clear enough in his own words: "if you live according to the flesh, you will die, but if by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live". This is a matter of life and death to Paul. If Paul's words are "simple", then leave them by themself. Simply present them.
8:23 is even firmer on justification as understood by protestantism. After all in ths verse we are told we have the "firdt fruits" Spirit evn though we await the redemption of our bodies. This means that we have a down payment, a deposit, a pledge, a guarantee that the remaining stages of salvation will be completed in us.
How can your salvation not be complete if you are already saved? Is your salvation a one-time-event or is it not?
Paul tells us that we "wait for adoption". If you are adopted in a forensic way through a one-time legal declaration, then there is no need to wait for further adoption as a child of God.
The Catholic understanding is that our adoption (which is our justification) is a process. We grow in sonship. The Protestant understanding is that our adoption is not a process, but a single event that is followed by sanctification. We are declared sons in the Son at once, and sanctification is a nice and wonderful process that helps prove our past justification.
Also, in verse 17, Paul tells us that we are "joint heirs with Christ, if only we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him".
Didn't Christ do it all on the cross? Are we not to have faith alone in what Christ did in order to be saved? Or must we suffer with Christ in addition to trusting in Christ? Sola Fide? Not according to Paul.
God bless,
Carson
R
Ruht
Guest
If it's not a "one time event," then why is it called salvation and not probation? Why does the Bible say in at least 3 places that those who believe on Christ are saved immediately?
If it is not immediate, then it is not grace, nor is it even salvation.
Where? Paul tells us that we are already adopted; in Romans 8:15-17 and Galatians 4:5&6. Romans 8:23 refers to the redemption of our "body," not the adoption of our spirits.
There is no "further adoption as a child of God," for you apparently have failed to see that Paul stated previously the following:
"For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye HAVE received the Spirit of adoption, whereby ye cry ABBA FATHER. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we ARE the children of God." - Romans 8:15&16
I ask you: If we are not yet adopted, then why does the Holy Spirit confirm that we are? How can we call God "Father" through the Spirit, if we are not yet his children? why does the Holy Spirit say we are indeed his children?
The word of God can only be properly interpreted through the author of the person who wrote the Bible - God. All other interpretations are private interpretations, and are not from God.
And any interpretation which contradicts grace is not from God; as stated in I Corinthians 2:12, if you are able to discern this.
That's because the Catholic misunderstanding is based on legalism, not grace. The Catholics stumble in the same way the Jews stumble and every other legalistic "faith" stumbles.
I see. Please tell me how a being grows in "sonship." I would like to know how a person can be a child of someone, but yet not quite a child.That's like saying you are saved, but not yet saved.
I ask you: Had Adam and Eve eaten from the tree of life, would they have had instant eternal life, or would they have had to eat from the tree for awhile before they finally had eternal life? How many times did they have to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in order to be dammed?
Men go to great lengths to retain their self-righteousness.
Does it say that we will not be heirs of God if we do not suffer with Christ? And what kind of suffering is Paul referring to? Physical acts of suffering, or the suffering of the loss of the old man, and the birth of the new?
You wish to interpret scripture into your already pre-conceived legalistic belief, not as it interprets through the Holy Spirit of grace.
No, not according to your misinterpretations of Paul.
"The cat is green." Please tell me what I mean by that, if you think yourself qualified to be able to properly interpret the words of another.
"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." - I Corinthians 2:11
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me HATH everlasting life, and SHALL NOT come into condemnation; but IS passed from death unto life." - John 5:24
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me HATH everlasting life." - John 6:47
"Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, HATH eternal life, and I WILL raise him up at the last day." - John 6:54
Your words reveal your lack of faith in Christ, and instead your faith in yourself. For those who have believed do enter into God's rest.
I'm sorry, but much of the Catholic dogma is rooted in legalism, and is not from God.
God bless.
[ August 25, 2002, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: Ruht ]
Like I said before, for every protestant that leaves his church for Catholicism there are 1000 catholics who come to the simplicity of the gospel and leave all the double-talk and razzle-dazzle of Romanism. If anything ,Carson, the Catholic church is becoming more "protestant-like" every day. Catholicism today with their bible studies, hymn singing, and charismatic style worship services is something new . It is not "old school" catholicism.
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. II Cor 11:13
[3] But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
Bible-belted
New Member
Carson,
"Yes, there sure is."
Then you should have not been so careless as to rtreat two staements that are 10 verses apart as if they were in the same verse. Paul is not making the same point inj v.23 as he is in v. 13. The pointa are related, but separate. To treat them as you do is very poor treatment of the text. Keep that point in mind in the future if you please.
"Of course, because I'm a feebleminded "Roman Catholic", I must misunderstand the simplicity of Paul's point. [[Smile]] "
I didn't say that. I said that you proceed based on a misaprehension of the protestant position, not Paul's point (though I believe you do do). It is nothing to do with your being feebleminded or anthying of that sort. You are needlessly personalising the comment. I note that YOU are the only one making comments about feeblemindedness here. That should tell you something.
"There just isn't enough room for Carson Weber, a Catholic, to be a student of Scripture, to have studied Romans in-depth."
I fear I don't see the point of this comment at all. It does not seem to make a relevant point. Perhaps you could demonstrate the relevance or perhaps juts stop making comments of this type.
"This may be typical in your experience. But, I assure you, I am not your typical Catholic, and I don't expect for your understanding of justification to lead you to moral laxity."
Then you are indeed unusual. It is not my expereience though that is the issue. It is very much a staple of RC apologetics to claim that the Calvanist position leads one to moral laxity by allegedly denying the need for good works. I find this amusing given that Paul refutes this very idea in Romans.
"It's a nice thing to do isn't it? But, is your resistance of the flesh necessary unto salvation? Is your very justification dependent upon whether you choose the flesh or the spirit in the future? Just how much of a necessity are you affirming here?"
Resisting the flesh is necessary for obedience, not for justifcation (do be careful in this; justifcation and salvation are not synonymous terms thugh there is overlap). Resisting the flesh is very much a sign of a renewed mind, a transformed heart. Holiness is a consequence of jsutification, not a cause of it. It is, as Paul points out, a necessary consequence. How can we who have died to sin live in it any longer?
"Paul is clear enough in his own words: "if you live according to the flesh, you will die, but if by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live". This is a matter of life and death to Paul. If Paul's words are "simple", then leave them by themself. Simply present them."
Yes, Paul is very clear. I have not denied that living by the Spirit is not a matter of life and death. That is a misunderstnding of my position. But Paul is also clear in pointing ut that holinesis a matter of living in the Spirit. Only those already justified do that. Living by the Spirit is also not a condition of justifcation. It is a condition for sanctification. You confuse a statement of Paul's dealing with sanctification as if it denied justifcation.
"How can your salvation not be complete if you are already saved? Is your salvation a one-time-event or is it not?"
Let's take this in context. In v. 19-22 of Romans 8, Paul describes the way creation itself anticipates its deliverance, a deliverance wichi is related to teh "glory to be revealed" to those who believ in Christ. Paul in v. 23 now says that believers also have this same eager waiting.
The thing you need to understand is that the term first-fruits implies both the beginning of a process and the definitve and inviolable connection between the beginning of the process and the end of the process. In a sense then when we believe we are justifed, we are saved. We have begun a process of being sanctified, but, given that the end result is not in doubt, it is, for all practical purposes, a done deal. But we still have to go through the process.
"If you are adopted in a forensic way through a one-time legal declaration, then there is no need to wait for further adoption as a child of God."
Yes we have the postion of sons. But we don't have all the benefits yet. Our inhertiance has not been fully given to us. You misunderstand adoption to mean that we necessarily receive, right away, all that we are entitled to. That is incorrect. We are given immediate entitlement as adopted sons, but we don't receive the fulliinheritance yet. As Paul clearly says, we still wait in eager anticiaption.
Your problem, clearly, is with Paul. Your understanding of th forensic model is deficient (I have noted in another post of yours a bad understnding of the forensic model). I suggest that you read up a bit on it before responding.
I know the RC position very well. It just isn't true is all.
"Yes, there sure is."
Then you should have not been so careless as to rtreat two staements that are 10 verses apart as if they were in the same verse. Paul is not making the same point inj v.23 as he is in v. 13. The pointa are related, but separate. To treat them as you do is very poor treatment of the text. Keep that point in mind in the future if you please.
"Of course, because I'm a feebleminded "Roman Catholic", I must misunderstand the simplicity of Paul's point. [[Smile]] "
I didn't say that. I said that you proceed based on a misaprehension of the protestant position, not Paul's point (though I believe you do do). It is nothing to do with your being feebleminded or anthying of that sort. You are needlessly personalising the comment. I note that YOU are the only one making comments about feeblemindedness here. That should tell you something.
"There just isn't enough room for Carson Weber, a Catholic, to be a student of Scripture, to have studied Romans in-depth."
I fear I don't see the point of this comment at all. It does not seem to make a relevant point. Perhaps you could demonstrate the relevance or perhaps juts stop making comments of this type.
"This may be typical in your experience. But, I assure you, I am not your typical Catholic, and I don't expect for your understanding of justification to lead you to moral laxity."
Then you are indeed unusual. It is not my expereience though that is the issue. It is very much a staple of RC apologetics to claim that the Calvanist position leads one to moral laxity by allegedly denying the need for good works. I find this amusing given that Paul refutes this very idea in Romans.
"It's a nice thing to do isn't it? But, is your resistance of the flesh necessary unto salvation? Is your very justification dependent upon whether you choose the flesh or the spirit in the future? Just how much of a necessity are you affirming here?"
Resisting the flesh is necessary for obedience, not for justifcation (do be careful in this; justifcation and salvation are not synonymous terms thugh there is overlap). Resisting the flesh is very much a sign of a renewed mind, a transformed heart. Holiness is a consequence of jsutification, not a cause of it. It is, as Paul points out, a necessary consequence. How can we who have died to sin live in it any longer?
"Paul is clear enough in his own words: "if you live according to the flesh, you will die, but if by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live". This is a matter of life and death to Paul. If Paul's words are "simple", then leave them by themself. Simply present them."
Yes, Paul is very clear. I have not denied that living by the Spirit is not a matter of life and death. That is a misunderstnding of my position. But Paul is also clear in pointing ut that holinesis a matter of living in the Spirit. Only those already justified do that. Living by the Spirit is also not a condition of justifcation. It is a condition for sanctification. You confuse a statement of Paul's dealing with sanctification as if it denied justifcation.
"How can your salvation not be complete if you are already saved? Is your salvation a one-time-event or is it not?"
Let's take this in context. In v. 19-22 of Romans 8, Paul describes the way creation itself anticipates its deliverance, a deliverance wichi is related to teh "glory to be revealed" to those who believ in Christ. Paul in v. 23 now says that believers also have this same eager waiting.
The thing you need to understand is that the term first-fruits implies both the beginning of a process and the definitve and inviolable connection between the beginning of the process and the end of the process. In a sense then when we believe we are justifed, we are saved. We have begun a process of being sanctified, but, given that the end result is not in doubt, it is, for all practical purposes, a done deal. But we still have to go through the process.
"If you are adopted in a forensic way through a one-time legal declaration, then there is no need to wait for further adoption as a child of God."
Yes we have the postion of sons. But we don't have all the benefits yet. Our inhertiance has not been fully given to us. You misunderstand adoption to mean that we necessarily receive, right away, all that we are entitled to. That is incorrect. We are given immediate entitlement as adopted sons, but we don't receive the fulliinheritance yet. As Paul clearly says, we still wait in eager anticiaption.
Your problem, clearly, is with Paul. Your understanding of th forensic model is deficient (I have noted in another post of yours a bad understnding of the forensic model). I suggest that you read up a bit on it before responding.
I know the RC position very well. It just isn't true is all.
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Psalm (what is your name?),
You wrote, "the Catholic church is becoming more "protestant-like" every day. Catholicism today with their bible studies"
Throughout the history of the Church, the clergy have presented Bible studies for the faithful - which have been expounded primarily through the homily. If you look at a list of writings from the Fathers of the Church, you'll discover numerous commentaries and expositions of every book in Scripture.
The first Protestants took the Bible from the Church.
hymn singing
You're kidding with me right? Singing hymns is not a Protestant invention or tradition. We can find evidence of the first Catholic hymns in the New Testament. Take, for instance, Col 1:15-20.
charismatic style worship
Our first pope was charismatic: Acts 2.
It is not "old school" catholicism.
It's an error to equate the Church with culture.
Hi Ruht,
You asked, "If it's not a "one time event," then why is it called salvation and not probation?"
Because we aren't being probed from hell; we're being saved from hell. We aren't being probed from our sin; we're being saved from our sin.
If it is not immediate, then it is not grace, nor is it even salvation.
If that's what you wish to think, but I disagree with you.
You asked, "Where?" in response to when I wrote, "Paul tells us that we "wait for adoption", and continued to tell me that "Paul tells us that we are already adopted
Paul in Romans 8:23 - "we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies"
For Paul, our adoption as children of God is not a one-time past event that occurred once wherein we were legally adopted as children of God, justified by the son forensically.
For Paul, our adoption as children of God is a process. It entails the redemption of our bodies, wherein the Spirit sanctifies us. This begins at baptism (Romans 6:3) and ends with the resurrection of our bodies.
You wrote, "There is no "further adoption as a child of God" and asked me, "If we are not yet adopted, then why does the Holy Spirit confirm that we are?"
Because we are and yet we aren't. We have the firstfruits of the Spirit. We're children, but we have yet to grow in the family.
The Protestant creates a dichotomy that isn't to be found in Paul's writings. Paul recognizes that we're sons of God and that we grow in our sonship - a teaching that sits well and is quite confortable to Catholics - but a teaching that is foreign to those entrenched in the Protestant tradition.
You wrote, "the Catholic misunderstanding is based on legalism, not grace."
From your statement above, I can see that you do not understand Catholic soteriology for the simple reason that Catholics do not believe in legalistic works-righteousness.
Now, you may find some Catholics that believe this contrary to the Church's teaching just as you found Judaizer Christians in the first century among the Christians in Rome and Galatia, but that doesn't mean that the Church teaches such.
We believe in grace and grace alone. Our being saved is God's work in us. He's the one who prompts us to pray. He's the one who makes us holy. He's the one who justifies us by what His Son did in the cross. He saves us.
You asked, "Please tell me how a being grows in "sonship." I would like to know how a person can be a child of someone, but yet not quite a child."
As we are "conformed to the image of his Son" (Rom 8:29), Christ is formed in us more and more. It is our being infiltrated with Christ's person - our being united with him through sanctification - our being cloaked throughout in our being with his righteousness - that we grow in sonship. This is accomplished through a life of faith. We receive the righteousness of God through faith. And even faith is a gift from God, given to us by charis/grace.
You asked, "what kind of suffering is Paul referring to?", referring to Romans 8:17.
He's speaking of redemptive suffering, which is found in what we term "mortification". It is through mortification that the flesh gives way to the spirit.
May God bless you,
Carson
[ August 25, 2002, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
You wrote, "the Catholic church is becoming more "protestant-like" every day. Catholicism today with their bible studies"
Throughout the history of the Church, the clergy have presented Bible studies for the faithful - which have been expounded primarily through the homily. If you look at a list of writings from the Fathers of the Church, you'll discover numerous commentaries and expositions of every book in Scripture.
The first Protestants took the Bible from the Church.
hymn singing
You're kidding with me right? Singing hymns is not a Protestant invention or tradition. We can find evidence of the first Catholic hymns in the New Testament. Take, for instance, Col 1:15-20.
charismatic style worship
Our first pope was charismatic: Acts 2.
It is not "old school" catholicism.
It's an error to equate the Church with culture.
Hi Ruht,
You asked, "If it's not a "one time event," then why is it called salvation and not probation?"
Because we aren't being probed from hell; we're being saved from hell. We aren't being probed from our sin; we're being saved from our sin.
If it is not immediate, then it is not grace, nor is it even salvation.
If that's what you wish to think, but I disagree with you.
You asked, "Where?" in response to when I wrote, "Paul tells us that we "wait for adoption", and continued to tell me that "Paul tells us that we are already adopted
Paul in Romans 8:23 - "we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies"
For Paul, our adoption as children of God is not a one-time past event that occurred once wherein we were legally adopted as children of God, justified by the son forensically.
For Paul, our adoption as children of God is a process. It entails the redemption of our bodies, wherein the Spirit sanctifies us. This begins at baptism (Romans 6:3) and ends with the resurrection of our bodies.
You wrote, "There is no "further adoption as a child of God" and asked me, "If we are not yet adopted, then why does the Holy Spirit confirm that we are?"
Because we are and yet we aren't. We have the firstfruits of the Spirit. We're children, but we have yet to grow in the family.
The Protestant creates a dichotomy that isn't to be found in Paul's writings. Paul recognizes that we're sons of God and that we grow in our sonship - a teaching that sits well and is quite confortable to Catholics - but a teaching that is foreign to those entrenched in the Protestant tradition.
You wrote, "the Catholic misunderstanding is based on legalism, not grace."
From your statement above, I can see that you do not understand Catholic soteriology for the simple reason that Catholics do not believe in legalistic works-righteousness.
Now, you may find some Catholics that believe this contrary to the Church's teaching just as you found Judaizer Christians in the first century among the Christians in Rome and Galatia, but that doesn't mean that the Church teaches such.
We believe in grace and grace alone. Our being saved is God's work in us. He's the one who prompts us to pray. He's the one who makes us holy. He's the one who justifies us by what His Son did in the cross. He saves us.
You asked, "Please tell me how a being grows in "sonship." I would like to know how a person can be a child of someone, but yet not quite a child."
As we are "conformed to the image of his Son" (Rom 8:29), Christ is formed in us more and more. It is our being infiltrated with Christ's person - our being united with him through sanctification - our being cloaked throughout in our being with his righteousness - that we grow in sonship. This is accomplished through a life of faith. We receive the righteousness of God through faith. And even faith is a gift from God, given to us by charis/grace.
You asked, "what kind of suffering is Paul referring to?", referring to Romans 8:17.
He's speaking of redemptive suffering, which is found in what we term "mortification". It is through mortification that the flesh gives way to the spirit.
May God bless you,
Carson
[ August 25, 2002, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Latreia,
After having read your last response, I think I can best respond with how I see Paul's soteriology.
I believe that Paul uses the terms of "justification" and "sanctification" interchangeably - that Paul does not present justification as only a legal change distinct from the moral change of sanctification.
For instance, Luke - Paul's missionary companion - quotes Paul who quotes Jesus as saying "they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me." This may be found at Acts 26:18.
At the start of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, he writes, "to the church of God that is in Corinth, to you who have been justified in Christ Jesus, called to be holy".
Oops.
I misquoted Paul intentionally. He really wrote, "to the church of God that is in Corinth, to you who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be holy".
Or later in the same letter, Paul writes in 6:11, "now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ"
Notice how Paul easily presents sanctification before justification as if it's an interchangeable word with justification. I would also further point out that the washing Paul is speaking of is baptism, but that's for another thread.
If you would like to read a short transcript between a Calvinist and one of my professors in a friendly debate/dialogue, I invite you to visit
http://www.mindspring.com/~darcyj/files/justify.htm
It's between Dr. Scott Hahn - a Scripture professor at my university - and Dr. Robert Knudson of Westminster Seminary. Dr. Hahn is a former Anti-Catholic Calvinist PCA Minister and Seminary Professor, and I have taken both an Old Testament and a New Testament class with him; he's a joy to learn from (at one point in time, he even taught R.C. Sproul's son).
Also, in the Epistle to the Hebrews 10:10, we read, "we have been sanctified (or should it be "justified"?) through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."
When we found our soteriology, we must begin with the language of Scripture. How does Paul speak? What is Paul's thought? Are we juxtaposing our preconceptions alongside Scripture, viewing Scripture in light of what we've been taught? Or are we really evaluating Scripture in its pristine language?
This is a challenge for both of us in our Biblical exegesis.
God bless,
Carson
[ August 25, 2002, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
After having read your last response, I think I can best respond with how I see Paul's soteriology.
I believe that Paul uses the terms of "justification" and "sanctification" interchangeably - that Paul does not present justification as only a legal change distinct from the moral change of sanctification.
For instance, Luke - Paul's missionary companion - quotes Paul who quotes Jesus as saying "they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me." This may be found at Acts 26:18.
At the start of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, he writes, "to the church of God that is in Corinth, to you who have been justified in Christ Jesus, called to be holy".
Oops.
I misquoted Paul intentionally. He really wrote, "to the church of God that is in Corinth, to you who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be holy".
Or later in the same letter, Paul writes in 6:11, "now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ"
Notice how Paul easily presents sanctification before justification as if it's an interchangeable word with justification. I would also further point out that the washing Paul is speaking of is baptism, but that's for another thread.
If you would like to read a short transcript between a Calvinist and one of my professors in a friendly debate/dialogue, I invite you to visit
http://www.mindspring.com/~darcyj/files/justify.htm
It's between Dr. Scott Hahn - a Scripture professor at my university - and Dr. Robert Knudson of Westminster Seminary. Dr. Hahn is a former Anti-Catholic Calvinist PCA Minister and Seminary Professor, and I have taken both an Old Testament and a New Testament class with him; he's a joy to learn from (at one point in time, he even taught R.C. Sproul's son).
Also, in the Epistle to the Hebrews 10:10, we read, "we have been sanctified (or should it be "justified"?) through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."
When we found our soteriology, we must begin with the language of Scripture. How does Paul speak? What is Paul's thought? Are we juxtaposing our preconceptions alongside Scripture, viewing Scripture in light of what we've been taught? Or are we really evaluating Scripture in its pristine language?
This is a challenge for both of us in our Biblical exegesis.
God bless,
Carson
[ August 25, 2002, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
R
Ruht
Guest
If we are in the process of being saved, and not saved already, then why does the Holy Spirit say we are already saved:
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish, foolishness, but unto us which ARE saved, it is the power of God." - I Corinthians 1:18
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he SAVED US, by the washing or regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost." - Titus 3:5
"These things I write unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye HAVE eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." - I John 5:13
"If it is not immediate, then it is not grace, nor is it even salvation."
You have the right to disagree, I suppose, but what is your disagreement? If we are not saved immediately, then that would mean that we would have to "endure" some sort of test or trial, meaning we are therefore not saved by grace, but by our own actions or "works."
Actually, it says this:
"And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body." - Romans 8:23
Now I ask you, why does that not say "our bodies," rather than "our body?" You apparently are assuming that it is talking about each individual's body. However, could it not be referring to the entire body of would be believers? Didn't Paul just get done mentioning the "creature," as opposed to the "children of God," in Romans 8:21?
It is apparent that you are interpreting scripture into your already pre-conceived notions of self-righteousness, and because of that you assume the scriptures support your notion. However, scripture can mean many things, with only the author of those scriptures being the one to be able to properly interpret the true meaning of those scriptures.
And God has said that men stumble at the scriptures when men come off the sure foundation of grace, and interpret it from the foundation of legalism, as you are doing.
If you forget what manner of man you are - saved by grace, not by works - and you therefore fail to apply this steadfast precept, then you will stumble when you come to scripture that sounds like it is interpreting what your natural mind believes.
This is where all men stumble when they misinterpret scripture in the pursuit of legalism. This is the "snare" the Jews found themselves in, as mentioned in Romans 9:30-33, and other places as well, including Isaiah 28.
It's not? then why did Paul say just prior to the 21st verse of Romans 8 that we HAVE received the Spirit of adoption, in which we are now "THE CHILDREN OF GOD," as stated in the 16th verse of that chapter?
You look right past those verses because you are looking for those things which you think supports your legalism.
Paul says nothing of the sort.
Paul does not say "our bodies," he says our body.
Now, apply that to this:
"For as we have many members in ONE BODY... So we, being many, are ONE BODY IN CHRIST..." - Romans 12:4&5
And:
"For we being many are one bread, and ONE BODY..." - I Corinthians 10:17
And:
"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into ONE BODY..." - I Corinthians 12:13
And there are more, if you would like me to cite them.
Uh huh. We "are and yet we aren't." Does that shame you to think that that is the best you can come up with? How can one be and not be? Do you have children? and if yes, are they not yet a part of your family?
Have you ever questioned the "theology" the Catholic church is feeding you?
As I said before, legalists will go to great lengths to retain their legalism.
I'm not sure that I understand what "dichotomy" you are referring to, but grace isn't "found" by those who cannot see it, for it is hidden to the natural man:
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the HIDDEN wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory;" - I Corinthians 2:7
God wrote the Bible in such a way that men cannot see it if they refuse to believe in Christ. And one does not believe in Christ if one is trying to get to heaven on their own efforts of righteousness. Therefore legalists cannot understand the Bible, because they refuse to believe. But we which have believed do enter into his REST.
I STRONGLY advise you to read I Corinthians chapter 2, over and over again, and ask the Holy Spirit to open your eyes to the revelations contained within it.
Yes, because contemporary Catholicism is and has been for quite some time, legalism.
I understand it better than you, my young friend, which is why I said what I said. Catholics do indeed believe in legalistic works-righteousness, which is why they believe salvation is not instantaneous. Your problem is that you do not understand grace, nor "works-righteousness."
No, you don't, and if you would like I will gladly provide your catechism straight from the Vatican, to confirm it.
One does not get salvation by works of "praying," which is reflective in your belief that one must perform acts of righteousness in order to be saved and/or to "complete" salvation.
What is thinly veiled in your answer is your belief that these things we must make a conscientious effort to do, not something which comes naturally through the new birth.
And that translates into "fleshly denials," am I right? You believe that one must make a conscientious effort to deny what you perceive are "lusts of the flesh," or you will not continue to be saved.
However, we are no longer in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwells in us. (Romans 8:9.)
Catholicism is the largest of the "Christian" legalisms. It is the largest "cult" under the Christian moniker.
Are some Catholics saved? Of course, as God's grace extends even unto the ignorant. Many babes in Christ do not understand their salvation, and I believe there are many genuine babes in Christ in the Catholic church; in bondage, however, to legalism.
For a time, anyway.
God bless.
[ August 25, 2002, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: Ruht ]