Questions and answers with Jeremiah2911 and others

[The Biblicist]

I've attempted to explain it to you. I don't think we have minds that can meet for this discussion then.

Your explanation exceeded the boundaries of the actual application to our real area of contention - justification. I don't have any problem with the GENERAL explanation you give in the sense of failing to understand it. However, it is not the GENERAL application that divides us. It is the SPECIFIC application to justification. Define it here as it is specifically here where the Bible uses the term "sign" in connection with justification (Rom. 4:11).

 

[lakeside]

Your explanation exceeded the boundaries of the actual application to our real area of contention - justification. I don't have any problem with the GENERAL explanation you give in the sense of failing to understand it. However, it is not the GENERAL application that divides us. It is the SPECIFIC application to justification. Define it here as it is specifically here where the Bible uses the term "sign" in connection with justification (Rom. 4:11).

The Biblicist, what exactly are you driving at with this "sign ' business ? Being that i am only a 'neophyte' could you then explain to me in the simplest laymans understanding. Also make it into a simple ,short question so as i can submit it to a Catholic apologist ,if I can get in contact with one. Back later, Thank you.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Biblicist, what exactly are you driving at with this "sign ' business ? Being that i am only a 'neophyte' could you then explain to me in the simplest laymans understanding. Also make it into a simple ,short question so as i can submit it to a Catholic apologist ,if I can get in contact with one. Back later, Thank you.

I have already presented this to you and you requested time to seek out a Catholic apologist in order to get an answer. I gave you the time to do that and am still waiting. So, if you want to know just go back to the thread entitled: "The Bibical Relationship of a "sign" to Justification."

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your explanation exceeded the boundaries of the actual application to our real area of contention - justification. I don't have any problem with the GENERAL explanation you give in the sense of failing to understand it. However, it is not the GENERAL application that divides us. It is the SPECIFIC application to justification. Define it here as it is specifically here where the Bible uses the term "sign" in connection with justification (Rom. 4:11).

So your initial questions have nothing really to do with the Sacraments and how it works in the believers life but rather how Justification is viewed? Which means signs, and the grace given by Jesus' institution of the signs which by means we receive grace really isn't your agenda but the differences in understanding Justification? Is this then correct?

 

[The Biblicist]

So your initial questions have nothing really to do with the Sacraments and how it works in the believers life but rather how Justification is viewed? Which means signs, and the grace given by Jesus' institution of the signs which by means we receive grace really isn't your agenda but the differences in understanding Justification? Is this then correct?

My initial question had to do with these four questions:

Regardless of how you or Rome may justify the above statements, can you confirm or deny the following expressions are in keeping with what the above quotations explicitly say about sacraments as a sign:

1. A perceptable sign? - CCC 1084

2. The instrument by which God conveys what is signified? - CCC 1084, 1997, 1992, etc.

3. That the grace of justification and new birth are received "by" and "in" the sacrament of baptism? - CCC 1992

4. That justifying faith is inseparable from baptism which is the "sacrament of faith" and "entry into the life of faith"? - CCC 1236

If you disagree, please quote the appropriate CCC statement referenced and point out where in that quotation I have misrepresented the wording.

As you can see questions 3-4 bring it down to the application of the term "sign" to justification in connection with baptism.

My conclusion from reading the CCC and discussing with you and other's who present the Catholic view of baptism it is

1. a "sacrament."
2. a "sign" that signifies the grace of justification, eternal life, regeneration,etc.
3. What it "signifies" is actually initially transferred instrumentally through baptism by the power of God (grace of justification, eternal life, regeneration, etc.).

Is this correct according to the common understanding of a Roman Catholic if I were to ask a priest to confirm or deny?

I should have reworded question #2 to read:

2. That Sacraments are regarded as "signs" which by the power of God instrumentally convey what they signify to the candidates at the time they willingly submit to them as the Catholic Church instructs them to.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

My initial question had to do with these four questions:

Regardless of how you or Rome may justify the above statements, can you confirm or deny the following expressions are in keeping with what the above quotations explicitly say about sacraments as a sign:

1. A perceptable sign? - CCC 1084

2. The instrument by which God conveys what is signified? - CCC 1084, 1997, 1992, etc.

3. That the grace of justification and new birth are received "by" and "in" the sacrament of baptism? - CCC 1992

4. That justifying faith is inseparable from baptism which is the "sacrament of faith" and "entry into the life of faith"? - CCC 1236

If you disagree, please quote the appropriate CCC statement referenced and point out where in that quotation I have misrepresented the wording.

As you can see questions 3-4 bring it down to the application of the term "sign" to justification in connection with baptism.

My conclusion from reading the CCC and discussing with you and other's who present the Catholic view of baptism it is

1. a "sacrament."
2. a "sign" that signifies the grace of justification, eternal life, regeneration,etc.
3. What it "signifies" is actually initially transferred instrumentally through baptism by the power of God (grace of justification, eternal life, regeneration, etc.).

Is this correct according to the common understanding of a Roman Catholic if I were to ask a priest to confirm or deny?

I should have reworded question #2 to read:

2. That Sacraments are regarded as "signs" which by the power of God instrumentally convey what they signify to the candidates at the time they willingly submit to them as the Catholic Church instructs them to.

In that entire quote Justification is used once with in the context of the questions about signs and the sacrament which is why I insist we must have a working Knowledge of how signs are understood by the catholic Church in order to discuss the sacraments and the graces there in. However, you don't want that. Not really. You want to discuss this in terms of justification. In which case again we must undertand signs and sacraments before a comparison with Justification. And as of this point we don't meet eye to eye with regards to how signs should be viewed.

 

[The Biblicist]

In that entire quote Justification is used once with in the context of the questions about signs and the sacrament which is why I insist we must have a working Knowledge of how signs are understood by the catholic Church in order to discuss the sacraments and the graces there in. However, you don't want that. Not really. You want to discuss this in terms of justification. In which case again we must undertand signs and sacraments before a comparison with Justification. And as of this point we don't meet eye to eye with regards to how signs should be viewed.

Well, simply explain from the Vatican's viewpoint what a "sign" means in its relationship to sacraments and justification. I am all ears!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Well, simply explain from the Vatican's viewpoint what a "sign" means in its relationship to sacraments and justification. I am all ears!

Uh... I did. Initially in post 9 then again in post 18.

 

[The Biblicist]

Uh... I did. Initially in post 9 then again in post 18.

Quote:
A sacramental celebration is a meeting of God's children with their Father, in Christ and the Holy Spirit; this meeting takes the form of a dialogue, through actions and words. Admittedly, the symbolic actions are already a language, but the Word of God and the response of faith have to accompany and give life to them

A sacramental "celebration" is a meeting between God and his children that takes the form of dialogue? This dialogue is more than words but actions and these actions are "symbolic actions" which convey a language or meaning but the Word of God and the response of faith must accompany and give them life.

So, if I break down all the mubble jumble and put this in practical terms that a layman understands, it simply means that God gives life through symbols in connection with the proper response of the partakers. Correct?

2)
Quote:
it is through the sacramental signs of his Church that the Holy Spirit carries on the work of sanctification. The sacraments of the Church do not abolish but purify and integrate all the richness of the signs and symbols of the cosmos and of social life. Further, they fulfill the types and figures of the Old Covenant, signify and make actively present the salvation wrought by Christ, and prefigure and anticipate the glory of heaven.

The sacraments are not merely "symbols" but are "signs" through which the Holy Spirit instrumentally carries on the work of sanctification. So combining the first quotation with the second quotation God meets with his children through sacraments in conveying spiritual life and continues to meet with his children through sacraments in performing the progressive work of sanctification. Correct?

Where as signs are understood as 3)
Quote:
God speaks to man through the visible creation...The same is true of signs and symbols taken from the social life of man: washing and anointing, breaking bread and sharing the cup can express the sanctifying presence of God and man's gratitude toward his Creator.

God speaks through the visible creation and thus through sacraments and thus the mass conveys the sanctifying presence of God unto the partakers wherein both God and parkers commune with each other through the mass actually conveying the life of Jesus Christ to the participants. Correct?

Quote:
Christ instituted the sacraments of the new law. There are seven: Baptism (Mark 16-16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.)
, Confirmation (or Chrismation)(Acts 8. 14-15 and 17: Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word
of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15. Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they
might receive the Holy Ghost: 17. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.), the Eucharist (Mark 14, 22-24: And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said,
Take, eat: This is my body. 23. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks. he gave it to them: and they
all drank of it. 24. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.), Penance (Numbers 5, 6-7: Speak unto the children of Israel. When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit . .
. Then they shall confess their sin which they have done,...Matt. 3, 5-6: Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan. And were
baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins....james 5:16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray...), the Anointing of the Sick(James 5, 14-16: Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders (i. e., priests) of the church; and let them pray
over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord
shall raise him up, and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.
), Holy Orders(I Cor. 4, l: Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God...John 15, 16: Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth
fruit; and that your fruit should remain- that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it to you) and Matrimony(Gen.2:24, after creating Eve, says "this is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his
wife, and they become one flesh".) The seven sacraments touch all the stages and all the important moments of Christian life

I read all this and still I come to the same conclusion as I did in reading the CCC concerning sacraments as signs that God uses to instrumentally convey the grace of justification, eternal life, regeneration, sanctification, etc.

If I have misunderstood and drawn the wrong conclusion then where did I miss something?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So, if I break down all the mubble jumble and put this in practical terms that a layman understands, it simply means that God gives life through symbols in connection with the proper response of the partakers. Correct?

No, God gives life through grace by faith but communicates them by symbols, language, etc...

The sacraments are not merely "symbols" but are "signs" through which the Holy Spirit instrumentally carries on the work of sanctification. So combining the first quotation with the second quotation God meets with his children through sacraments in conveying spiritual life and continues to meet with his children through sacraments in performing the progressive work of sanctification. Correct?

Yes with the understanding I just expressed responding to your first statement. Life is given by grace through faith communicated by signs and symbols. To ignore one aspect is to miscommunicate.

God speaks through the visible creation and thus through sacraments and thus the mass conveys the sanctifying presence of God unto the partakers wherein both God and parkers commune with each other through the mass actually conveying the life of Jesus Christ to the participants. Correct?

Yes, but again with the foundational understanding that life is given by grace through faith and communicated by the sacraments which are under a sign or symbol or dialogue, etc...

I read all this and still I come to the same conclusion as I did in reading the CCC concerning sacraments as signs that God uses to instrumentally convey the grace of justification, eternal life, regeneration, sanctification, etc. If I have misunderstood and drawn the wrong conclusion then where did I miss something?

Grace is already conveyed through faith but communicated by the sacraments.

 

[The Biblicist]

No, God gives life through grace by faith but communicates them by symbols, language, etc...

So, the sacraments are INSTRUMENTAL in conveying grace by faith to their person.

How can faith be both the prerequisite and consequence in regard to baptism?

1992 ....Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith."

1236 The proclamation of the Word of God enlightens the candidates and the assembly with the revealed truth and elicits the response of faith, WHICH IS INSEPARABLE FROM BAPTISM. Indeed Baptism is 'THE SACRAMENT OF FAITH' in a particular way, since it is the sarcramental ENTRY into the life of faith.

Yes with the understanding I just expressed responding to your first statement. Life is given by grace through faith communicated by signs and symbols. To ignore one aspect is to miscommunicate.

Ok! Then the signs and symbols are INSEPARABLE from faith! Or can life by grace through faith be receieve without/apart from signs and symbols?

Yes, but again with the foundational understanding that life is given by grace through faith and communicated by the sacraments which are under a sign or symbol or dialogue, etc...

Grace is already conveyed through faith but communicated by the sacraments.

Ok, but can it be communicated WITHOUT sacraments or WITHOUT signs and symbols by grace through faith?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So, the sacraments are INSTRUMENTAL in conveying grace by faith to their person.

I don't think you read with comprehension. Life is given by Grace through Faith and Communicated by Signs, Symbols, Diologue, etc... Try reading that again.

How can faith be both the prerequisite and consequence in regard to baptism?

Have you ever heard of something strengthening or adding to your faith? Certainly in your sacrament of reading scriptures you find that the words add to a faith you have already been given do you not? It works the same way.

1992 ....Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith."

This is where we disagree. Justification is confered at Faith, it is also confered at Baptism which is a completion (in a sense or the fruit of that faith) of that faith. Church of Christ are Closer to it than you where as nothing is communicated at baptism for you. However, I believe scripture to be clear about it. The washing the NT speaks of is the baptism. Jesus shows the way by meeting God at his Baptism which we see the Holy Spirit decend upon him. Where it just symbolic there would be no need of Jesus doing it. However, Baptism is shown to to be connected with receipt of the Holy Spirit at least in part. So you have faith which leads to baptism to experience God or meet with him at the death of your body to raising again in him.

1236 The proclamation of the Word of God enlightens the candidates and the assembly with the revealed truth and elicits the response of faith, WHICH IS INSEPARABLE FROM BAPTISM. Indeed Baptism is 'THE SACRAMENT OF FAITH' in a particular way, since it is the sarcramental ENTRY into the life of faith.

It is the entry into the Kingdom of God it is the sign of entry. In much the same way as circumcision was a sign of the Jew so is baptism for the Christian. However, don't confuse this with being unable to enter the kingdom Apart from baptism. There is dispensations for special circumstances like the theif on the cross. Certainly he expressed his faith but could not partake in baptism. Do we suggest he is not in the kingdom? Not at all.

Ok! Then the signs and symbols are INSEPARABLE from faith! Or can life by grace through faith be receieve without/apart from signs and symbols?

Yes and Yes. Often we receive grace before the sacrament which gives us the faith to fully participate in the sacrament which again gives us more grace. Like reading the scripture again. You are given faith and fill up on more grace reading scripture yet if you don't begin with faith what does scripture avail you? Yet, having faith you receive more Grace for stronger faith. Sacraments work that way.

Ok, but can it be communicated WITHOUT sacraments or WITHOUT signs and symbols by grace through faith?

Jesus instituted the sacraments. They are covenant in nature and to partake in them is to partake in covenant. These are the places Jesus said he wants us to meet with him. Baptism (covenant people of God), Confirmation (covenant receipt and empowering of the Holy Spirit), Communion (covenant meal), Matrimony (covenant binding of two humans in marriage under God), Holy Orders (convenant binding of a person to Jesus for the purpose of service), Reconciliation (covenant repentance and renewal of relationship), Annointing the sick (Covenant response of God to his people in need).

 

[The Biblicist]

I don't think you read with comprehension. Life is given by Grace through Faith and Communicated by Signs, Symbols, Diologue, etc... Try reading that again.

Can you be given life without regeneration or can you have faith joined with life without justification?

How can you be given life/regeneration and faith/justification and yet have no completion of either until they are communicated and received in baptism. Does not this demand they are sectional and progressive. Sectional because you obtain PART prior to baptism but progressive because you are not communicated their completion until in, by and through baptism? Hence, both would be INCOMPLTED PROGRESSIVE actions begun BEFORE baptism but completed in baptism???? Or are they really ever completed in baptism but rather just the intial reception completed in baptism but really an ongoing progressive actions maintained through other sacraments but never really ever completed until purgatory is completed and you stand approved at the final judgement????

Hence, in reality what received before baptism is INITIAL life/justification and what is received in baptism is really INITIAL life/justification and only what is received at Judgement is completed life/justification?

Hence, regeneration/justification/sanctification are all incompleted actions and thus progressive until justification at judgement?

 

[The Biblicist]

This is where we disagree. Justification is confered at Faith, it is also confered at Baptism which is a completion (in a sense or the fruit of that faith) of that faith. Church of Christ are Closer to it than you where as nothing is communicated at baptism for you.

Are you then defining intial faith as mere intellectual assent but then submission to baptism as the completion of that faith in good works?

 

[The Biblicist]

In much the same way as circumcision was a sign of the Jew so is baptism for the Christian.

Indeed, Paul actually called circumcision a "sign" and "seal" of Abraham's justification by faith - Rom. 4:11 and here is where the definition of "life by grace through faith" completed in "baptism" stands or falls in regard to what the Bible teaches versus what the Vatican teaches in regard to "sacraments" and "signs."

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Can you be given life without regeneration or can you have faith joined with life without justification?

I believe regeneration to be a process. But no you can not come to faith with out the work of the Holy Spirit making you alive.

How can you be given life/regeneration and faith/justification and yet have no completion of either until they are communicated and received in baptism.

have you ever heard of a fuller amount? You begin to receive God's grace then you continue to recieve God's grace.

Does not this demand they are sectional and progressive. Sectional because you obtain PART prior to baptism but progressive because you are not communicated their completion until in, by and through baptism? Hence, both would be INCOMPLTED PROGRESSIVE actions begun BEFORE baptism but completed in baptism????

I need to consider this more.

Or are they really ever completed in baptism but rather just the intial reception completed in baptism but really an ongoing progressive actions maintained through other sacraments but never really ever completed until purgatory is completed and you stand approved at the final judgement????

Faith and Baptism are the Gate onto the Path of Salvation in one sense. Purgation has to do with sanctification.

Hence, in reality what received before baptism is INITIAL life/justification and what is received in baptism is really INITIAL life/justification and only what is received at Judgement is completed life/justification?

I'll have to think about the wording of this as well. Justification is "getting heaven into us". Not just a "covering up." or "play Pretend" until final judgment.

Hence, regeneration/justification/sanctification are all incompleted actions and thus progressive until justification at judgement?

The problem is that all can be said to have been done. But more so as we submit our lives over the period of our lives.

So in a sense you are partly right. I am regenerate, I am being regenerated, I will be fully regenerate. But each point regeneration has occured and if I were to die at each point I would be saved.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Are you then defining intial faith as mere intellectual assent but then submission to baptism as the completion of that faith in good works?

No, because before faith you are given life in grace. Intellectual assent is in the domain of Protestantism. Ie... Belief without action. Or Maybe you believe in intellectual assent with great feeling. Still this is not faith as I see it. Baptism is what Jesus does for you and where you meet him. Not what I do for myself. Good works are the natural and necissary fruit of faith. What Jesus said is key. If you love me you will do the will of the Father. You will do what Jesus asked. Not because its magic. But because you are expressing your love to him.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Indeed, Paul actually called circumcision a "sign" and "seal" of Abraham's justification by faith - Rom. 4:11 and here is where the definition of "life by grace through faith" completed in "baptism" stands or falls in regard to what the Bible teaches versus what the Vatican teaches in regard to "sacraments" and "signs."

Its exactly the same thing

And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them.

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe regeneration to be a process. But no you can not come to faith with out the work of the Holy Spirit making you alive...... Faith and Baptism are the Gate onto the Path of Salvation in one sense. Purgation has to do with sanctification..... I am regenerate, I am being regenerated, I will be fully regenerate. But each point regeneration has occured and if I were to die at each point I would be saved.

I understand your explanations. I thank you for your time in making sure that I understood it properly. Your explanations did aide in a more consistent fuller comprehension from a Roman Catholic perspective.

I have gone step by step with you and you have answered step by step. I fail to see where I made any major mistake in understanding the bottom line Roman Catholic relationship between a "sign"and "sacrament" in regard to justification? I may have not used the precise terminology that you believe was required to provide the right basis for defense of your position but as far as I can see, in a laymen's explanation I hit it right on the target (although maybe not right on the bullseye).

Now, here are the original questions and I believe that by your detailed explanation and defense that you have to answer "yes" to each one if I just tweaked the wording in very minor ways. The Roman Catholic perception of a "sacrament" is that it is:


1. A perceptable sign? - CCC 1084

2. The instrument by which God conveys what is signified? - CCC 1084, 1997, 1992, etc.

3. That the grace of justification and new birth are received [in some sense]"by" and "in" the sacrament of baptism? - CCC 1992

4. That justifying faith is inseparable from baptism [because it finds more fullness and thus] which is the "sacrament of faith" and "entry into the life of faith"? - CCC 1236

However, I believe that such an explanation is completely incompatible with the Biblical teaching and that can be precisely demonstrated at the point of the Biblical use of the same term "sign" in connection with justification by faith - Romans 4:11 - and in regard to the idea that a "sign" is instrumental in conveying what is signified - Lk. 5:12-15.

Are you now ready to approach this dispute in regard to how Christ and Paul perceives a "sign" in connection with justification by faith from a Baptist perspective since I have listened to your Catholic perception?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I understand your explanations. I thank you for your time in making sure that I understood it properly. Your explanations did aide in a more consistent fuller comprehension from a Roman Catholic perspective.

I have gone step by step with you and you have answered step by step. I fail to see where I made any major mistake in understanding the bottom line Roman Catholic relationship between a "sign"and "sacrament" in regard to justification? I may have not used the precise terminology that you believe was required to provide the right basis for defense of your position but as far as I can see, in a laymen's explanation I hit it right on the target (although maybe not right on the bullseye).

Now, here are the original questions and I believe that by your detailed explanation and defense that you have to answer "yes" to each one if I just tweaked the wording in very minor ways. The Roman Catholic perception of a "sacrament" is that it is:


1. A perceptable sign? - CCC 1084

2. The instrument by which God conveys what is signified? - CCC 1084, 1997, 1992, etc.

3. That the grace of justification and new birth are received [in some sense]"by" and "in" the sacrament of baptism? - CCC 1992

4. That justifying faith is inseparable from baptism [because it finds more fullness and thus] which is the "sacrament of faith" and "entry into the life of faith"? - CCC 1236

However, I believe that such an explanation is completely incompatible with the Biblical teaching and that can be precisely demonstrated at the point of the Biblical use of the same term "sign" in connection with justification by faith - Romans 4:11 - and in regard to the idea that a "sign" is instrumental in conveying what is signified

I disagree. I believe Romans 4:11 to support the position of the Sacraments as far as Lk. 5:12-15 it doesn't oppose Sacrament in that the visible sign was the dialogue "I am willing" and Jesus touching the man. Fulfilling the requirement of Moses is for the witness of what God had done.

Are you now ready to approach this dispute in regard to how Christ and Paul perceives a "sign" in connection with justification by faith from a Baptist perspective since I have listened to your Catholic perception?

We can discuss it. But note I may not agree that your perception of Paul and Jesus thoughts are accurate.