The Doctrine of Justification: The True Gospel

[ReformedBaptist]

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.
I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
He said, "Like what?"
I said, "Well, are you religious or atheist?"
He said, "Religious."
I said, "Me too! Are your Christian or Buddhist?"
He said, "Christian."
I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, Me too! Are your Episcopalian or Baptist?"
He said, "Baptist!"
I said, "Wow! Me too! Are your Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
He said, Baptist Church of God!"
I said, "Me too! Are your Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!"
I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!"
I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.

That's very old. Are you a grandpa? :type:

 

[Johnv]

That's very old. Are you a grandpa? :type:

No, and if my daughter knows what's good for her, I won't be for quite some time.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

No, and if my daughter knows what's good for her, I won't be for quite some time.

Holy criminy batman, now I understand you...southern california. Get out of the land of fruitcakes so you may come to your senses.

 

[Johnv]

Holy criminy batman, now I understand you...southern california. Get out of the land of fruitcakes so you may come to your senses.

Nice try. I'm from the OC, where we have nothing to do with the Los Angeles and San Francisco fruitcakes that give the state a bad name. It's an innocent mistake, though. If LA and SF didn't exist, our electoral votes would consistently be going to the Republican candiate ever POTUS election.

 

[Marcia]

Yes, there are differences, but these have been exaggerated as part-and parcel of the 16th century Reformation and Counter-Reformation polemics causing both sides to, to a degree, talk past each other.* A cursory read of both the canons of the Council of Trent and the Lutheran Book of Concord will demonstrate that. It's taken the Joint Declaration to undo much of that mutual misunderstanding.

*[ETA - thus Lutherans condemned what they thought Catholics believed, not what they actually believed, and vice versa. We see much the same syndrome on these boards...]

You've got to be kidding! One of the main differences between Catholics and non-Catholics is the doctrine of justification. Did you not read my post?

Furthermore, justification, acc. to the Council of Trent, is a man becoming righteous, not merely declared righteous.

You said this:

I'm not sure that it anathematizes anyone for believing in salvation by grace since that is what Catholics believe - they'd scarcely go round anathematizing themselves, now would they?

They do not believe this. It is not by grace and faith alone. What do you think the Reformation was about?

Even the Catholic Church agrees that there are different views on justification between their teachings and non-Catholics. And yes, salvation by faith alone was declared anathema.

It seems like you don't want to accept the facts, Matt.

 

[Marcia]

Funny, I didn't see any mention of grace in that Tridentine quote you gave. And I think you'll find that Catholic do believe in salvation and justification by grace: see here

From your own source:

The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity.

Justification needs our collaboration.

Do you think the Roman Catholics who agree there are differences are wrong? Do you know more than them?

Also, look at this:

2027 No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.

You don't seem to understand the Catholic view of grace. There is an initial grace, but then there is need to merit further salvific grace. Grace is infused with the sacraments, which is one reason they are so important.

I find it odd that an Anglican so fervently defends the Roman Catholic faith. Are you Anglo-Catholic?

 

[Matt Black]

Not particularly, no; my position is best characterised by the term 'Reformed Catholic' ie: 'classic' Anglicanism.

I promised yesterday to explain further what the Catholic Church's catechism says about grace. First off, it says that grace is a free gift from God, unmerited etc. and that our salvation and justificationo are effected by it. So far, so good, as far as evangelicals are concerned - and hence my taking issue with RB on that point re Trent. The difference comes in two key areas:

1. The means of communication of grace. Evangelicals would say this is through saving faith (although Calvinists and Arminians would differ as to the precise methodology), whereas Catholics, whilst not denying the importance of faith, would also stress the sacraments, particularly baptism and communion, as being methods of communicating saving grace. (Catholics, flowing from this, regard infant baptism as an ultimate example of grace since the infant is wholly incapable of assenting to or meriting it; this will doubtless strike Baptists as bizarre, but that's what they think!)

2. The blurring of saving grace with sanctifying grace by Catholics, as distinct from evangelicals who regard the two as discrete. It's this really that gives rise to the 'faith+works' soteriology of Catholics which evangelicals find so distasteful, although a more accurate description of the Catholic position would be 'saving grace working through faith and good works'.

Now, back to the anathemata of the Reformation era: Catholics at Trent took Luther's sola fide position to mean antinomianism ie: (in modern evangelical parlance) all I have to do is pray the Sinner's Prayer*/invite Jesus into my life*/have faith in His atoning death and resurrection*/(*delete according to your own particular view) and carry on as it nothing has happened (eg: with the drink, drugs and hookers) and all will be fine. Tridentine Catholics were scandalised by this notion and hence condemned it at Trent. Similarly, Lutherans saw the Catholic position as being anti-grace and being dependent on Man's efforts to get saved - in a very real sense, a reversion to Pelagianism - and similarly condemned what they saw. Neither side, though, had a fully accurate view of the other's soteriology, and it took the discussions leading up to the Joint Declaration 10 years ago for them to realise that. That's not to say that there aren't significant soteriological differences - I've highlighted those above - but the gap has certainly been narrowed.

 

[Marcia]

I promised yesterday to explain further what the Catholic Church's catechism says about grace. First off, it says that grace is a free gift from God, unmerited etc. and that our salvation and justificationo are effected by it. So far, so good, as far as evangelicals are concerned - and hence my taking issue with RB on that point re Trent. The difference comes in two key areas:

1. The means of communication of grace. Evangelicals would say this is through saving faith (although Calvinists and Arminians would differ as to the precise methodology), whereas Catholics, whilst not denying the importance of faith, would also stress the sacraments, particularly baptism and communion, as being methods of communicating saving grace. (Catholics, flowing from this, regard infant baptism as an ultimate example of grace since the infant is wholly incapable of assenting to or meriting it; this will doubtless strike Baptists as bizarre, but that's what they think!)

2. The blurring of saving grace with sanctifying grace by Catholics, as distinct from evangelicals who regard the two as discrete. It's this really that gives rise to the 'faith+works' soteriology of Catholics which evangelicals find so distasteful, although a more accurate description of the Catholic position would be 'saving grace working through faith and good works'.

Catholics believe that you must have the sacraments to continue to great grace in order to be saved, right? This is why Catholics do not seem sure about whether they are going to heaven or not. Then there's the troubling belief in purgatory, which undermines the efficacy of the atonement. I'm not even getting to mortal sins here, which does the same thing.

Now, back to the anathemata of the Reformation era: Catholics at Trent took Luther's sola fide position to mean antinomianism ie: (in modern evangelical parlance) all I have to do is pray the Sinner's Prayer*/invite Jesus into my life*/have faith in His atoning death and resurrection*/(*delete according to your own particular view) and carry on as it nothing has happened (eg: with the drink, drugs and hookers) and all will be fine. Tridentine Catholics were scandalised by this notion and hence condemned it at Trent. Similarly, Lutherans saw the Catholic position as being anti-grace and being dependent on Man's efforts to get saved - in a very real sense, a reversion to Pelagianism - and similarly condemned what they saw. Neither side, though, had a fully accurate view of the other's soteriology, and it took the discussions leading up to the Joint Declaration 10 years ago for them to realise that. That's not to say that there aren't significant soteriological differences - I've highlighted those above - but the gap has certainly been narrowed

Anyone who thinks that it's okay to say a sinner's prayer or have faith in Christ and then being able to sin with no cares is undoubtedly not regenerated by the Holy Spirit, i.e., not saved. The Holy Spirit brings conviction of sin. Yes, we can ignore that, and there are consequences as God keeps convicting, but over time, the bent of a Christian's life is toward Christ and away from sin.

I don't see how the gap has been narrowed. The Catholics have not changed their theology in significant ways regarding salvation and justification as far as I know.