Pilgrim wrote:Cathapol,<br><br>Let me play the "moron" here just for fun. IF what you are proposing and claiming is the "whole truth", i.e., that your clearer use of terms is in fact what Trent, Vatican II and the Catholic Encyclopedia actually teach:<br><br>Justification is a one time thing which cannot be increased nor decreased. That works will naturally flow from one who is justified and they only increase or decrease rewards for the justified. That once justified there is no possibility of hell.<br><br>then why was there so much disagreement by the Reformers with Rome? Why did Rome pronounce myriad "anathemas" upon what the Reformers taught on the matter of Justification (Sola Fide), when in fact they taught exactly the same things?<br><br>Either the Reformers and most Protestants since them have totally misunderstood the OFFICIAL Catholic documents in regard to the doctrine of Justification, and/or Rome has consistently been likewise guilty of totally misunderstanding what the Protestant doctrine of "Sola Fide" teaches.<br><br>Would you like to provide an explanation as to how this most unfortunate misunderstanding came about and continues even to this day? I'm sure there are many besides myself who would be most grateful to get this "breach" repaired. <br><br>[color:purple]Scott replies:<br><br>Well, first off I believe there are some that believe that no works are meritorious in any way, shape or form - this would be absolutely wrong from the Catholic perspective. Trent's anathemas point to those who reject works in this fashion. For those that accept that works are necessary for justification/sanctification - then we are in agreement. <br><br>Trent also opposes the "once saved, always saved" mentality. Grace is a gift, but those who do not "persevere" in Grace can lose that "gift." We generally hear a challenge to "God's Sovereignty" in this regard - but in reality, there is no usurption of God's Sovereignty in the Catholic belief system. In God's Sovereign Will, He has deemed to "give" man a will similar to His Own (in His Image). He desires that we get to know, love and serve Him in this world so that we might live happily in eternity with Him in the next. The "knowing, loving and serving" of Him is not possible if one is pre-programmed (or elected in the Calvinist sense). If you take away man's ability to choose to accept God's Gift, or reject it, then you've taken away his ability to truly love Him. God wants our love - and offers His Free Gift to all who will accept it. Those who reject His Gift will be condemned. If one is condemned, it is not because God has failed, but that person has failed to accept the Gift. John 3:16 sums up the Gospel message quite well, "For God so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." <br> <br>As far as sola fide is concerned, the only plausible explanation I have heard from Protestantism is the statement of "justification is by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone" (RC Sproul, Faith Alone, p 155). That statement from Sproul (and others) makes doublespeak of sola fide, for what is "faith alone, but not a faith that is alone?" RC is saying that something else is necessary to go along with faith (reconciling Protestantism to James 2:24) stating works are necessary to show a saving faith. Well, why it took Protestantism so long to come to that conclusion is beyond me, it has always been part of Catholic teaching, and to use the title of sola fide is a bit misleading (and hence the anathemas from Trent follow for those who adhere to a strict interpretation of "faith alone").<br> <br>Does this clear up some of this "gross misunderstanding?"<br> <br>In JMJ,<br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">Scott<<<</font><br></font color=purple><br> <br>
Jason wrote: You could have never known, never even heard about baptism, Jesus Christ, the Bible, etc., and yet you could very well be saved in Roman Catholicism.<br><br>Scott writes: Jason has (again) only presented part of the story and then attempted to "spin" it into nonsense. The Church never says those outside absolutely WILL be saved.<br><br>Jason writes: And neither did I say they teach that! Really Scott, is it any wonder that we can't have intelligent interchange on matters of theology when you can't even read a simple sentence and deal with the intended meaning of that sentence? Did I ever imply everyone was saved? Was it my intent to imply such a thing? No, I simply made the point that Roman Catholicism teaches that someone can be completely ignorant of the Christian faith and still be saved, without any reference or allusion to number. Do you take any time to read and comprehend what is posted? This is the second time you have accused me of hiding things or spinning Roman dogma just because I did not deal comprehensively with the subject when it was never my intention to do so, only to bring to light those areas where the biblical testimony and the Roman Catholic assertions part ways in a serious way. Unless you can show how by choosing not to address an unrelated teaching of your communion, I have contradicted or changed the meaning of the particular teaching that I am bringing to light, your posts decrying misrepresentation are nonsense and demonstrate an unwillingness to debate the issue at hand.<br><br>So tell me Scott, just because Roman Catholicism does not teach absolutely everyone outside the Roman communion will be saved, how is this relevant to my point that they leave open the possibility of salvation for those who have never even heard of Christ? Are you disputing that Roman Catholicism teaches that such people may be saved as they follow their consciences because had they known of Christ and baptism they would have received it? Tell us how just because not all are saved who are outside the communion of Rome is in any way relevant to my point that they provide the possibility of their salvation. Stop kicking up sand and deal with what has been posted.<br><br>Jason.
As I expected you have only clouded over what you have maintained is clear; i.e., the OFFICIAL Roman Catholic doctrine of "Justification" and that held by you. Further even if you wish to maintain, in spite of the obvious differences, you have once again shot yourself in the foot by revealing the gross antithesis within the Roman Catholic doctrine of "Justification".
In reply to:
Well, first off I believe there are some that believe that no works are meritorious in any way, shape or form.
If you are referring to "Justification"; how one is accepted as just before God, then by your own testimony, both Rome and yourself would agree with that statement. For you have maintained quite vehemently, that one CANNOT ADD (INCREASE) TO NOR SUBTRACT (DECREASE) FROM JUSTIFICATION. IF you are referring to "Sanctification", then no true Protestant would find that statement acceptable, for biblically, anyone who has been regenerated and given faith will infallibly be justified and all who are justified will infallibly show forth good works as fruit of that regeneration, which out of God's infinite grace, are rewarded in the end.
In reply to:
Trent also opposes the "once saved, always saved" mentality. Grace is a gift, but those who do not "persevere" in Grace can lose that "gift."
Could anything be more perspicuously contradictory and antithetical to all that you have posited in regard to "Justification"; both your view which is allegedly the same as Rome's OFFICIAL teaching? If Justification can NEVER be increased nor decreased, then how is it possible that anyone could be lost who has, in fact, been JUSTIFIED? It is YOU who has admitted that Rome sometimes intermixes the terms "justification" and "sanctification". And you have likewise maintained that justification is unalterable once established, but sanctification is alterable, being dynamic; subject to increase and decrease. Further, sanctification ONLY has to do with rewards.
I'll not respond your admission and embrace of the semi-Pelagian concept of "free-will" here, but I would be more than happy to engage you concerning that topic in another thread.
In reply to:
As far as sola fide is concerned, the only plausible explanation I have heard from Protestantism is the statement of "justification is by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone" (RC Sproul, Faith Alone, p 155). That statement from Sproul (and others) makes doublespeak of sola fide, for what is "faith alone, but not a faith that is alone?" RC is saying that something else is necessary to go along with faith (reconciling Protestantism to James 2:24) stating works are necessary to show a saving faith.
I often wonder how it is that Roman Catholics, especially those who have come out of Protestantism and claim to have understood Protestant dogma can make such statements as yours!!
Whether you choose to agree or disagree with the doctrine of Sola Fide, it is certainly logical and easily comprehended. What R.C. Sproul and all those who adhere to the biblical formulation of Sola Fide are saying is that JUSTIFICATION is a judicial declaration whereby a sinner is legally pronounced "not guilty" based upon SOLELY upon the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ's vicarious substitutionary atonement effectively and completely satisfied the law of God for the elect in His death. And, likewise those same elect are given His perfect righteousness. Thus they stand LEGALLY righteous (alien righteousness) and therefore are not subject to judgment; that judgment having been executed on the cross. Because, the elect are also regenerated (a necessary means to salvation), in the application of Christ's meritorious vicarious substitutionary atonement for the elect, good works naturally flow from that new nature created within them.
It is often the case that many modern Protestants in addition to most Catholics, err in making "faith" a work, i.e., the proximate CAUSE of justification, which is annexed to Christ's atonement, which ALONE is acceptable and meritorious. There is absolutely NO VALUE, NOR MERIT in faith. For even that faith is a gift of God which terminates infallibly in Christ and His work.
Thus, the Scriptures and the Reformed doctrine of "Sola Fide" clearly teach that justification is the declaration of being not guilty and sanctification is the natural expression of one justified; having been given a new nature that naturally seeks to conform to God's perfect law and which are anterior to justification and having no effect upon it.
Pilgrim wrote: If you are referring to "Justification"; how one is accepted as just before God, then by your own testimony, both Rome and yourself would agree with that statement. For you have maintained quite vehemently, that one CANNOT ADD (INCREASE) TO NOR SUBTRACT (DECREASE) FROM JUSTIFICATION. IF you are referring to "Sanctification", then no true Protestant would find that statement acceptable, for biblically, anyone who has been regenerated and given faith will infallibly be justified and all who are justified will infallibly show forth good works as fruit of that regeneration, which out of God's infinite grace, are rewarded in the end.
[color:purple]Scott replies: Actually, the statement I made, I also amended (a MANY messages ago). Rome uses the language of "justification" a bit more liberally than you do, but IF we apply it as you do (and one can do that) then when we're referring to the final justification, there is no further justification possible - one either is or isn't justified at that point. The problem is you're attempting to put your definition of justification on the Catholic's use of it. When we're operating from two different definitions - there can be no consensus. I accept some of the responsibility for my use of the terms "justification" and "justified" in the sense of a "final" justification (as Protestantism defines it), but you're constant attempt try to put THAT use on ALL uses in Catholic teaching is what I object to. In ALL instances that Catholicism uses those terms, it doesn't mean what Protestantism insists upon.
Pilgrim continues:
In reply to: [color:purple]Trent also opposes the "once saved, always saved" mentality. Grace is a gift, but those who do not "persevere" in Grace can lose that "gift."
Could anything be more perspicuously contradictory and antithetical to all that you have posited in regard to "Justification"; both your view which is allegedly the same as Rome's OFFICIAL teaching? If Justification can NEVER be increased nor decreased, then how is it possible that anyone could be lost who has, in fact, been JUSTIFIED? It is YOU who has admitted that Rome sometimes intermixes the terms "justification" and "sanctification". And you have likewise maintained that justification is unalterable once established, but sanctification is alterable, being dynamic; subject to increase and decrease. Further, sanctification ONLY has to do with rewards.
[color:purple]Scott replies: Pilgrim, I've stated over and over again, the Catholic view on justification is not ALWAYS the way Protestants interpret it. If we view it as Protestants do, then it's a FINAL thing, and not part of the persevering. IF we are "judged" to be justified, (in the Protestant sense) then there is no more justification - for it HAS BEEN judged. The difference is that you believe you can be fully justified, here and now, and you believe (if I am following you correctly) that once you are justified, here and now, you can NEVER lose that justification. That position defeats the concept of "perseverence" that St. Paul repeatedly teaches and demands. So, you can pick and choose among my words and decide which ones you wish to use against me, but you're still not getting around St. Paul's demand that we persevere. If such is "guaranteed" then perseverence is nothing, meaningles, void.
Well, I will admit most willingly that you do have the age-old Roman Catholic practice of "rope-a-dope". Not that I expected anything other.
So, if I am understanding you right, at this point, when you and Rome, which you are adamant to maintain are espousing the same dogma, the "justification" you are speaking of is that which occurs at the very end of one's life and not during one's life. If that is true, then the charge that you and Rome teach a "faith+works" salvation are incontrovertibly true. For, all that a person does during his/her life contributes to that "final justification".
There is an incredible amount of biblical evidence to support the Reformed doctrine of "Sola Fide" and the concept of a "forensic/alien righteousness". Some of which can be found on The Highway website here: Sola Fide
As to your consternation over "Sola Fide" and the many passages which mention "persevering to the end", it is easily understood when one realizes that all such texts are stressing the responsibility of man and not the eternal decree of salvation. That is why the formulation is most often referred to as the "Perseverance/Preservation of the Saints". Because of the inherent remnant of the old nature in man which wars against the new spirit (nature) created at regeneration, it is incumbent upon all those who profess to have faith in the Lord Christ that they endure to the end, fighting against those sinful tendencies. Those who fail to persevere to the end reveal that their "faith" was ingenuous. This is the emphasis which James speaks when he says, "faith without works is dead".
[color:purple]As far as sola fide is concerned, the only plausible explanation I have heard from Protestantism is the statement of "justification is by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone" (RC Sproul, Faith Alone, p 155). That statement from Sproul (and others) makes doublespeak of sola fide, for what is "faith alone, but not a faith that is alone?" RC is saying that something else is necessary to go along with faith (reconciling Protestantism to James 2:24) stating works are necessary to show a saving faith.
I often wonder how it is that Roman Catholics, especially those who have come out of Protestantism and claim to have understood Protestant dogma can make such statements as yours!!
[color:purple]Scott replies: "Protestant dogma?" Isn't that an oxymoron?
Whether you choose to agree or disagree with the doctrine of Sola Fide, it is certainly logical and easily comprehended. What R.C. Sproul and all those who adhere to the biblical formulation of Sola Fide are saying is that JUSTIFICATION is a judicial declaration whereby a sinner is legally pronounced "not guilty" based upon SOLELY upon the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ's vicarious substitutionary atonement effectively and completely satisfied the law of God for the elect in His death. And, likewise those same elect are given His perfect righteousness. Thus they stand LEGALLY righteous (alien righteousness) and therefore are not subject to judgment; that judgment having been executed on the cross. Because, the elect are also regenerated (a necessary means to salvation), in the application of Christ's meritorious vicarious substitutionary atonement for the elect, good works naturally flow from that new nature created within them.
[color:purple]Scott replies: So, is it sola fide or fides + opus? If "good works naturally flow from that new nature created within them" then faith is not alone, for it is "naturally accompanied" by works. You added a lot of text to say the exact same thing I quoted from RC Sproul - "faith alone, but not a faith that is alone." If your faith has no works, it is not a saving faith, so faith alone is NOT a saving faith. That is where sola fide fails.
It is often the case that many modern Protestants in addition to most Catholics, err in making "faith" a work, i.e., the proximate CAUSE of justification, which is annexed to Christ's atonement, which ALONE is acceptable and meritorious. There is absolutely NO VALUE, NOR MERIT in faith. For even that faith is a gift of God which terminates infallibly in Christ and His work.
[color:purple]Scott replies: I have never said "faith is a work." Is this a diversionary tactic to get me to argue for (or against) something I did not even say?
Thus, the Scriptures and the Reformed doctrine of "Sola Fide" clearly teach that justification is the declaration of being not guilty and sanctification is the natural expression of one justified; having been given a new nature that naturally seeks to conform to God's perfect law and which are anterior to justification and having no effect upon it.
[color:purple]Scott replies: Well, again, IF we use Justification in the "final sense," Catholic have no disagreement with what you're saying.
As I was following your debate with Cathapol, an article that you wrote (by the way it is excellent) called Do You REALLY Believe that Salvation is by Grace Alone? came to mind. Do you think that article would be appropriate to post in this thread?
The problem is you're attempting to put your definition of justification on the Catholic's use of it.
How can any agreement possibly come between Catholics and Protestants when we can't agree on the meaning of a word? The difference between Roman Catholicism and the Protestant Reformation is over this kind of theological confusion. It has been pointed out that "works" follow saving faith but do not in any way make one just before God. Romans 4:5 tells us, [color:red]"To the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness." God designates as [color:red]"blessed" those [color:red]"to whom God credits righteousness apart from works" (Romans 4:6).
Sadly Scott many evangelicals are confussed over this teaching as well. They agree with your understanding of "original sin" which denies the depravity of man and teaches that man is basically good. When you fail to see that man cannot in himself in any way contribute to his salvation you will ultimately arrive at a different understanding of what makes up justification.
Wes
When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
Wesley - you wrote:<br><br>"When you fail to see that man cannot in himself in any way contribute to his salvation you will ultimately arrive at a different understanding of what makes up justification. "<br><br>AMEN...and until they do...they will never understand the unfathomable character and nature of God's saving grace (free and sovereign). <br><br>blessings,
Scott,<br><br>Would you mind answering several personal questions?<br><br>1) At this moment, in the sight of God, does [color:purple]your</font color=purple> righteousness exceed that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law?<br><br>2) Why, or why not?<br><br>3) Will [color:purple]your</font color=purple> righteousness in God's sight [color:red]continue</font color=red> to exceed that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law until the consummation of all things?<br><br>4) Why, or why not?<br><br>5) What comfort, if any, does this knowledge give you?<br>
Actually I was wanting to know if you thought it was appropriate for this discussion.<br><br>Here it is though:<br>http://www.the-highway.com/grace_Pilgrim.html<br><br>Tom
Jason wrote:So tell me Scott, just because Roman Catholicism does not teach absolutely everyone outside the Roman communion will be saved, how is this relevant to my point that they leave open the possibility of salvation for those who have never even heard of Christ? Are you disputing that Roman Catholicism teaches that such people may be saved as they follow their consciences because had they known of Christ and baptism they would have received it? Tell us how just because not all are saved who are outside the communion of Rome is in any way relevant to my point that they provide the possibility of their salvation. Stop kicking up sand and deal with what has been posted.
[color:purple]Scott replies: Jason, mea culpa if I overread what your intent was. Yes, the Church teaches some outside the visible Catholic Church may be saved, leaving such a personal judgment to God alone. This can only be applied to those in invincible ignorance, or in other words, through no fault of their own. Those who willfully remain outside the Church and are fully aware of the Church and the Church's teaching on this may be condemned for all eternity, and likely will be.
Would you mind answering several personal questions?
1) At this moment, in the sight of God, does your righteousness exceed that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law?
2) Why, or why not?
[color:purple]Scott replies: I do not have the sight of God so how can I answer that question?
3) Will your righteousness in God's sight continue to exceed that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law until the consummation of all things?
4) Why, or why not?
[color:purple]Scott replies: Since I cannot answer your first two questions, I cannot answer these two either.
5) What comfort, if any, does this knowledge give you?
[color:purple]Scott replies: I do not seek "comfort," I only seek to know, love and serve my Lord in this world so that I may live happily with Him in eternity.
1) At this moment, in the sight of God, does your righteousness exceed that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law?
2) Why, or why not?
Scott replies: I do not have the sight of God so how can I answer that question?
That seems to be a clever, safe answer, Scott, but by replying in that manner you are in danger of denying the Word of God which has been revealed from heaven to you, so that you, with all men, are without excuse.
If your faith IS NOT IN Christ, then you have no righteousness in God's sight: "There is no one righteous, not even one...no one will be declared righteous in His sight by observing the law."
If your faith IS IN Christ, then you have been declared righteous in God's sight: "to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness...since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ...Who has become for us wisdom from God--that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption."
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
Not that I expected anything other.
