Pages

Saturday, May 4, 2013

The justification verses that Protestants missed.

We know that when the Bible speaks on a given subject it does not always use the same words. This means that reducing your study to only a word search for a specific term will not always give you the full picture when it comes to formulating (systematizing) your doctrines. In this post I will show that the New Testament spoke of the doctrine of Justification in passages where the term "justify" doesn't appear (and instead a synonymous term is used). I believe this data will support the Catholic understanding of Justification while greatly undermining the Protestant understanding of Justification.

First let's look at some verses that use the term "saved" in a context that are clearly speaking about getting Justified: 
  • Acts 15:9,11 is about the Gentiles accepting the Gospel and parallels “cleansed their heart by faith” to “saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus.” 
  • Ephesians 2:5,8 says, “when we were dead in our trespasses, [God] made us alive together with Christ” and defines this as “by grace you have been saved
  • 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says, “God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth” 
  • Titus 3:5 says, “he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit” – Paul parallels this to justification in v7 
In these Pauline passages, Paul is describing getting justified in terms of an inner transformation in the believer: cleansed, made alive, sanctified, washing of regeneration. This is astonishing if, as Protestants teach, Justification involves no change within the individual.

Now let's look at some verses that speak of "forgiveness of sins," which can only refer to the category of Justification: 
  • Acts 26:18 says “open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.”
  • Col 2:11ff says, “having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,”
  • 1 John 1:7,9 says, “the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. … If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”  
These passages follow the theme of the previous set. Justification here is being described in terms of sanctification and cleansing and being made alive; all descriptions of inner transformations.

Lastly, consider texts speaking of righteousness, with this righteousness referring to Justification: 
  • Philippians 3:3, 9-11 says the “the righteousness from God that depends on faith” is to be understood as “that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death” 
  • 1 Peter 2:24 says, “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.” 
These texts must be understood as speaking of something more than an external righteousness that covers us, and instead a righteousness that transforms us from within.

With this data presented, the Protestant might object by saying that these passages are speaking of Salvation in a broader sense, with Justification being a distinct subset of Salvation. The problem with this objection is that, while this could be true, it begs the question. And that objection gets to the whole point of this post: Protestants are assuming Justification means one thing, but they're deriving their understanding from traditions of men, not the Bible. This Biblical evidence does not suggest that Justification is solely forensic or that its a discrete category of Salvation as a whole, but rather that being "saved" and having "sins forgiven" and experiencing God's righteousness is tied directly to a radical inward transformation. Now when one goes onto examine the passages of Scripture that do use the term "justify," notably Romans 3-5 and Galatians 2-3, they will have to analyze these with the Biblical evidence just presented in mind. Anything else would not be systematic theology.

(This post should be read in conjunction with the last few posts I've written, going over key terms like righteousness, justify, Law, works, and impute.)

201 comments:

1 – 200 of 201   Newer›   Newest»
Steve Martin said...

Wow.

I wonder if anybody else realizes this.

Steve Dalton said...

"I wonder if anyone else realizes this." Well, just about every Biblically literate Catholic in the world does realize this.

cwdlaw223 said...

There's a reason the EO never adopted such a twisted interpretation of the Greek. Because it's not true. Why the sola scriptura crowd doesn't require Greek Bibles is baffling.

Berhane Selassie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Berhane Selassie said...

I was once debating with Matt Slick over sins, repentance and salvation, Matt said when he repents God is "faithful and just and cleanses me of all unrighteousness." I said that verse says you get "forgiven of sins" also, then Matt replied he intentionally omitted that part of the verse, obviously being a good Calvinist he must suppress it

Anonymous said...

Nick,
This is another convoluted article. Why didn't you start with Rom 3:24--" being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;" to give a clear example of justification? Rom 5:1 would also have been a good place to start.

The problem with the RC view is that they confuse justification with sanctification. They are not the same things.

cwdlaw223 said...

Man wants God on his own terms, and when necessary, put God in a box in the corner and call him when he needs him. This is why history is consistently ignored because if you examine history you see Protestantism is fiction.

credulo said...

Hello, Nick!

Maybe it is unrelated to the post, but can you write&post, or at least give some good indication, about the question of Nature&Grace issue, in the framework of Roman Cathoclic theology? I think itr is a 'silver bullet' against Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace.

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

The problem is that you try to separate justification and sanctification and they were never meant to be separated. Just like you can't separate my heart or lungs from my body. They were never meant to be separated. (Just like scripture and the Church).

So who was the second person in Christendom who believed like you think Paul does about a legal form of justification and did not partake in the Mass? What's the name of such person so I can look them up?

Clint said...

Nick,

Thank you for another good post!

Anonymous,

[9] Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, [10] Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. [11] And such some of you were; but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9–11 DV)

The unjust will not be in the Kingdom of God. Those who are washed, that is, those who are baptized and are living up to their baptism are the just/sanctified. Justification and Sanctification are not separate. Think about the person who is unjust – the unrepentant idolater, fornicator, and hater. His state of being is the opposite of one who is sanctified; he is profane, and his profanity is intimately part of his being unjust.

Pax tecum.

Anonymous said...

Justification is an instantaneous legal act of God in which he (1) thinks of our sins as forgiven and Christ’s righteousness as belonging to us, and (2) declares us to be righteous in his sight.
Wayne Grudem Systematic Theology (pg. 723)

Sanctification is the process of being set apart for God's work and being conformed to the image of Christ. Matt Slick

Anonymous said...

Clint,
Justification is a one time event that has present results. Sanctification has to do with putting sin out of lives and pursuing Christ-likeness.

It is not our works that keep us justified in the sight of God. Rather it is our position in Christ that makes us justified in the sight of God. Our works that are said to justify us are not meritorious but are evidence that salvation-justification has happened.

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

Who said justification is a one time event in early church history?

I'm not aware of anyone before the Reformers who interpreted the Greek the way they/you do and Nick has consistently shown how such interpretation of the Greek is false.

Anonymous said...

Paul did. See Rom 5:1

cwdlaw223 said...

No he didn't. See Nick's post and learn Greek. Nobody interpreted the Greek for justification as a one time legal event. Pure legal novum out of thin air.

Name one person in history who believed justification was a one time legal event AND celebrated the Mass after Paul's death until the Reformation.

Just one! Please. After you realize you are unable to find such person, explain why!

cwdlaw223 said...

It was not until the 1500′s that “justification” became strictly a change in a man’s status before God, and NOT a change in a man’s nature. It was not until the 1500′s that “justification” became strictly a “legal declaration” and NOT a process. This alteration in the doctrine of justification was “a genuine theological novum” (Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei, pages 184, 186-187). In regard to this change, there were no “forerunners of the Reformation” (ibid., 185). As McGrath sums it up: It was thus in the Reformation that “a fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before” (ibid., 184, 186).

cwdlaw223 said...

The post above was from a protestant who admits that the definition of the word "justification" changed. Legal declaration? Please.

Why not claim that Israelites existed in North America and the angel Moroni gave you special tablets and special glasses that you can't show anyone else???

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw,
The problem you have is that you assume the church was always correct. We know there were errors it believed for a long time. Even today your church promotes error by claiming to worship the same god as the Muslim.
Muslims deny the Trinity and yet you and them worship the same god. Go figure.

credulo said...

The problem you have is that you assume the church was always correct.

It just contradict the very essence iof the promises of Lord: 'I will be always with you'.

We know there were errors it believed for a long time. Even today your church promotes error by claiming to worship the same god as the Muslim.
Muslims deny the Trinity and yet you and them worship the same god. Go figure.


Strange... How you know the Only One God is a Triune God? What if the Mueslims were right and we are wrong on that issue?

ALSO, it is just a blatant question-begging: 'We are right because all are wrong before us'

Clint said...

Anonymous who replied to me,

St. Paul wrote in Romans 6:18–20,

[18] Being then freed from sin, we have been made servants of justice. [19] I speak an human thing, because of the infirmity of your flesh. For as you have yielded your members to serve uncleanness and iniquity, unto iniquity; so now yield your members to serve justice, unto sanctification. [20] For when you were the servants of sin, you were free men to justice. (DV)

Anonymous said...

credulo,
If the Muslims are right then the RCC is a false church.

Clint said...

This comment is in reply to the anonymous person who wrote that St. Paul taught in Romans 5:1 that justification is a one time event.

Let's look at Romans 5:1–2,

[1] Being justified therefore by faith, let us have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: [2] By whom also we have access through faith into this grace, wherein we stand, and glory in the hope of the glory of the sons of God. (DV)

To have faith in the glorious truth is to be just in the sight of God and to be in His grace -- to be in His friendship just as Abraham was. If we were to suddenly lose the faith then we would not be just in the sight of God anymore. If justification is only a one time event where we are declared righteous then even apostasy would not remove our justification, the peace we have with God, and the grace we are in. The Apostolic doctrine is that we who have been baptized into Christ must continue -- we must run the race -- all the way to the end. To have that continuous faith is to be "faithing," or, faithful. So as long as we are continuing in our faith we will continue to have our justification.

Pax tecum.

Anonymous said...

Clint,
If salvation depends on anything you do or don't do then Christ is of no benefit. It means you must keep yourself in salvation and not God. It means justification is based on your efforts and not on the declaration of God Who saves. There can be no such thing as assurance of salvation since it really depends on your feeble efforts and not on the finished work of Christ.


The good news i.e. the gospel is that Christ paid the price for sin in full and has give us His Spirit Who works out our salvation and keeps us forever. We are to live our lives for Him and He gives us the power to do so.

Nick said...

Anonymous Ralph,

You said: "The problem with the RC view is that they confuse justification with sanctification."

Yes, this is a serious "problem," and the problem is that this "problem" is precisely what the Bible teaches. LOOK to what Berhane just told us:

"I was once debating with Matt Slick over sins, repentance and salvation, Matt said when he repents God is "faithful and just and cleanses me of all unrighteousness." I said that verse says you get "forgiven of sins" also, then Matt replied he intentionally omitted that part of the verse, obviously being a good Calvinist he must suppress it"

Matt Slick was 'quoting' 1 John 1:9, which says:
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to *forgive* us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

In other words, by your standard, St John was a Catholic, since he "confused" justification and sanctification. This is precisely the point of my post, where I show Peter and Paul ALSO "confused" justification and sanctification in about 8 instances. UNLESS maybe Protestants are the ones confusing justification and sanctification by improperly defining them?

Anonymous said...

Nick,
How do your Greek lexicons of the NT define these terms?
Not sure why Matt would omit part of a verse.
Here is the verse from I John 1
"9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Here is the next verse:
"10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us."

Why would Matt omit any part of these verses?

Clint said...

Anonymous,

Paragraph 841 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions the place of Moslems in the plan of salvation. It simply says that they profess to have the faith of Abraham and that they and Catholics believe in the one merciful God who will judge mankind. This particular paragraph is derived from the Vatican II documents titled Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate.

Moslems believe in three things that are true: there is one God, He is merciful, and He will judge mankind. Such a God objectively exists and according to Romans 1 ancient men and women knew His existence from the cosmos and reason. In a sense, Moslems believe in the true God and worship Him. Catholics, on the other hand, have the orthodox faith and worship. Moslems do not have the Son and therefore not even the Father, that and they have their own heterodox ideas. We should hope and pray that this leads them to embrace the true faith, repent, be baptized, and run the race with us.

Nick,

I apologize for my comment not being focused on the main subject. Feel free to delete.

Pax vobiscum.

Anonymous said...

Clint,
Are you saying the Trinity is the same as the Allah? Evidently your church thinks so.

Clint said...

Anonymous,

You wrote,

If salvation depends on anything you do or don't do then Christ is of no benefit.

I guess you didn't like Romans 6:18–20!

By your logic we don't even need to believe in Him (John 3:16), repent of our sins (Luke 13:3), and be baptized (Mark 16:16). After all, it's the finished work of Christ!

What do you think about this passage?:

[19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, [20] Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, [21] Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21 DV)

Salvation doesn't depend on what we do or don't do, eh?

Pax tecum.

Clint said...

Anonymous,

You wrote,

Are you saying the Trinity is the same as the Allah? Evidently your church thinks so.

Did you even comprehend what I wrote? Obviously not. Reread.

Let me tell you something. Even if a sweet and beloved Pope attempted to make an ex cathedra statement that Catholicism and Islam are the same religion but with different theological expressions and liturgical practices, I would reject him as a manifest heretic and would not believe in anything he says. Any true Catholic would do the same. St. Athanasius of Alexandria said something about even if there were only a handful of Catholics in the world. ;)

Nick said...

Anonymous Ralph,

You said:
"Not sure why Matt would omit part of a verse."

LOL. Matt omitted it because St John was confusing justification with sanctification in the same sentence. In fact, all the quotes I gave show the Apostles confusing the two. Calvinists believe a true Christian would never mix justification (legal, courtroom, external) with sanctification language (family, internal, transformation).

Anonymous said...

Clint,
Its important to understand what justification is and what sanctification is. They are not the same things and if we mix them up or assume they are the same things then our theology will be contradictory.

Romans 6:18-20 is about sanctification i.e. how we are to live in Christ. It is not about justification which is about our position before God in Christ.

Belief in Christ and what He did is necessary for salvation. Even that he gives the power to us to believe. Repentance i.e. turning from sin to God and baptism are commands that we are to do so that we publically identify with Him in His death and resurrection.

Gal 5:19-21 is about walking in the flesh or in the Spirit. It is walking (sanctification) in the Spirit that we are to live.

Sanctification does not keep one saved. Only Christ does that. Sanctification is all about putting sin out of our lives and pursuing Christ-likeness. It is to live out our salvation (justification) by living righteously (sanctification).

Anonymous said...

Clint,
Then you should reject your catechism and those who wrote it. They are the ones with the approval of the pope and the magesterium that say you all worship the same god.

.."they and Catholics believe in the one merciful God who will judge mankind."

Anonymous said...

Nick,
Being a true Christian has nothing to do with mixing up terms. That is nonsense.

Nick said...

Anonymous,

Why did Peter describe justification as a cleansing of the heart in Acts 15:9,11?

And why did Paul describe justification in terms of washing and regeneration in Titus 3:4-7?

Berhane Selassie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Berhane Selassie said...

Anonymous:

God judges the "heart"--He does not paint lipstick on a pig and declare it to be just because of its pretty lipstick.

Matthew's Gospel states Christ casts away "workers of iniquity" and as Nick showed 1John 1:9 shows that a Christian can be CLEANSED from unrighteousness, now how can he be cleansed if God only sees them as righteous?, remember, this is the same word used for "justified" else where in the NT. And any notion of forgiveness after regeneration is incompatible with a Calvinist model of the cross.

BTW why don't you get a real screen name so you won't be confused with other anonymous people.

John W. said...

Not just 1John 1:9, but also

1Jo 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;
7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.

Walking in the light of Jesus -->> the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin.
Not a passive act (walking in the light) and not a legal covering of the blood of Jesus (Conditional -IF you walk in the light).

Does this mean if you don't walk in the light of Jesus (say you are a lapsed Calvinist). Are you still cleansed from all sin by the blood of Jesus?
Does the blood of Jesus sanctify in the Calvinist paradigm?

cwdlaw223 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Nick,
Peter in Acts 15:9 is describing what God does in salvation when a man puts his faith in Christ. This is in context of those who wanted to keep the law as the means of salvation. See verse 10.

In Titus 3:4-7,Paul is showing the effects of salvation-justification that brings divine cleansing from sin and the gift of a new, Spirit-generated, Spirit-empowered, and Spirit-protected life as God’s own children and heirs.

Anonymous said...

Berhane,
You are mixing up 2 different passages. I john 1:9 has to do with our sanctification. It is true we are clothed-filled with the righteousness of Christ. However, since our salvation is not complete because we still live in fallen flesh we can still sin. That is what I john 1:9 is addressing. Sins after justification. Justification does not make us perfect.

Don't RC's believe they are regenerated?

You can call me Ralph

Anonymous said...

John,
We are commanded to walk in the light. Those that are saved-justified will desire to do so. When a true Christian fails to do so, He is still saved and all his sins have been forgiven at the cross (Col 2:13-14).

Confession of sin characterizes genuine Christians, and God continually cleanses those who are confessing. Those who are not walking in the light and refuse to repent will be disciplined. See Heb 12:4-11. They would not be cleansed of sin until they repent. If they don't repent then that is an indicator they were never justified to begin with. See Heb 12:8

If by sanctify you mean to cleanse then yes. The blood cleanses us.

Nick said...

Ralph,

You said:
"Peter in Acts 15:9 is describing what God does in salvation when a man puts his faith in Christ. This is in context of those who wanted to keep the law as the means of salvation. See verse 10."

Yes. Peter is speaking of justification here, but the POINT is that he describes justification as God CLEANSING the heart. Shouldn't Peter have known better than to confuse justification and sanctification?


You said:
"In Titus 3:4-7,Paul is showing the effects of salvation-justification that brings divine cleansing from sin and the gift of a new, Spirit-generated, Spirit-empowered, and Spirit-protected life as God’s own children and heirs."

As with the above, I think you're missing the point. Paul is speaking of justification when he says we're "saved by the washing and regeneration," but shouldn't he have known that washing and regeneration are terms describing inner sanctification and thus have nothing to do with justification?


Anonymous said...

Nick,
Peter is not confused but you are. Justification does involve cleansing. The cleansing is done by God in our salvation. We are also to cleanse ourselves as 2 Corinthians 7:1 says-- Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. The filthiness refers to religious defilement, or unholy alliances with idols, idol feasts, temple prostitutes, sacrifices, and festivals of worship. We could also add that this would include all sin in our lives. Sin always defiles us.

So on the one hand God cleanses us by the blood of Christ in our salvation-justification and on the other we are to put sin out of our lives which is sanctification.

Clint said...

Anonymous,

You wrote: They are not the same things and if we mix them up or assume they are the same things then our theology will be contradictory.

I think they would only be contradictory if the theology that one believes in makes them so due to its definitions.

You wrote: Romans 6:18-20 is about sanctification i.e. how we are to live in Christ. It is not about justification which is about our position before God in Christ.

I think we live our position. In that sense we are justified by faith and works just as Abraham was according to St. James. :)

You wrote: Belief in Christ and what He did is necessary for salvation. Even that he gives the power to us to believe. Repentance i.e. turning from sin to God and baptism are commands that we are to do so that we publically identify with Him in His death and resurrection.

From my perspective Repentance and Baptism are not just public matters -- they are very personal and they concern our relationship with God.

You wrote: Gal 5:19-21 is about walking in the flesh or in the Spirit. It is walking (sanctification) in the Spirit that we are to live. Sanctification does not keep one saved. Only Christ does that.

I think the end of verse 21 implies Sanctification keeps one in "this grace wherein we stand."

You wrote: Sanctification is all about putting sin out of our lives and pursuing Christ-likeness. It is to live out our salvation (justification) by living righteously (sanctification).

I like this definition. :)

Pax tecum!

Berhane Selassie said...

Anon/Ralph:

1 John 1:9 uses the word "unjust" because committing sins in Johns view is not just. The word is ἀδικίας which mean 'not just'! The word Paul uses for 'justified' in Romans 3:28 is δικαιοῦσθαι. The words both come from the word for just.

It cannot be simply about sanctification, but justification too, otherwise how can you say a justified man is forgiven of sins and from being "un-just"? It would be a complete contradiction to say hes an unjust just man. The condition of confessing sins shows he was not automatically forgiven, or certainly not forgiven before he ever sinned.

Anonymous said...

Daniel,
People are heated because church history is not what they think it is. Its not RC. I have shown that its not and everyone is mad at me.

You claim to understand Clement. Tell me what he means by "Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both--of the water and of the Word--is called Eucharist,.."????

Why didn't he mention the bread?

Nick said...

Anonymous Ralph,

You said:
"Justification does involve cleansing"

Then how did Catholics get it wrong by saying justification includes/involves sanctification?

Anonymous said...

Nick,
That's a good question. The RCC is not known for its exegesis skills.

Ralph

De Maria said...

Ralph said:Anonymous said...
Nick,
That's a good question. The RCC is not known for its exegesis skills.

Ralph


On the contrary, the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament and in its Traditions contains the fulfillment of the Old Testament. The Catholic Church knows and explains the Scriptures better than anyone, bar none.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Anonymous said...

Ok. Where can I see this work on the exegesis on the Scriptures?

De Maria said...

Anonymous said...
Daniel,
People are heated because church history is not what they think it is. Its not RC. I have shown that its not and everyone is mad at me.

You claim to understand Clement. Tell me what he means by "Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both--of the water and of the Word--is called Eucharist,.."????

Why didn't he mention the bread?


Because he was speaking of the Divine Blood in that section. He does not however, deny that the Eucharistic Bread is the Body of Christ. In the above, you can see that he believes that the wine is truly become the Blood of Christ. Below, you will see that he believes the Bread is also become the Flesh of our Lord:

“Eat ye my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery. We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.” (Paedagogus 1:6)

Eat my flesh and drink my blood is from the famous Bread of Life discourse in John 6. Wherein he also says, "the bread that I will give is my flesh." Therefore, St. Clement believes this explicitly.

Sincerely,

De Maria

cwdlaw223 said...

Ralph -

Sinful man cannot put his faith in Christ. That's impossible in your world because there is no such thing as free will given the bondage of sin. Furthermore, that would be work and you specifically noted our works are meaningless.

So where does that leave man? Under the roulette wheel of the grace of God which we cannot reject nor can we control when we receive grace. Man is a rudderless ship on a sea of sin with no orr unless God fastens one on our boat and there's nothing we can do to cause the orr to come down from heaven or stop it from attaching to our boat.

God I miss my Protestant days. :)

cwdlaw223 said...

Ralph -

Let's assume there was a massive disagreement over the real presence in the Eucharist until 350 AD. Why did the real presence position dominate history from 350 AD forward (use 500 AD if 350 is too early) and no consistent body of believers rejected the real presence doctrine from 350/500 AD to 1,500 AD?

Catholics were suppressing such historical record? Everyone was secretly denying the real presence in an invisible church of true believers? Or, we had better exegesis of the Greek the farther removed man became from using the Greek in scripture.


Berhane Selassie said...

Ralph:

you said: The RCC is not known for its exegesis skills.

Me: Not true, Catholic theologians have read the bible in a number of ways, one of the methods Protestants would see as eisegesis, though some of their own ministers are guilty of similar reading. There are a number of verses in the NT where Jews accuse the NT writers of eisegesis, why because according to the context of passages in their plain reading cannot be read in such a way.

De Maria said...

Anonymous said...
Ok. Where can I see this work on the exegesis on the Scriptures?


Everytime you pick up the New Testament and read it, you are reading the written Catholic explanation of the Word of God.

Anonymous said...

you said: The RCC is not known for its exegesis skills.

Cornelius à Lápide, Aquinas, Jesuits, Scholasticism... Oh, the famous Jerusalem Bible too!

cwdlaw223 said...

Ralph -

Assume the church was in complete theological chaos until 500 AD over the Eucharist. Why did the Catholic position win out on the Eucharist and your position faded away like dust in the wind until the reformers came along?

WHY????

You cannot point to a body of people in history after 500 AD who believed in the non-presence in the Eucharist until the Reformation. If you think you can, name such body of people

cwdlaw223 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

cwdlaw,
Like I have said many times before: just because something is believed for a long time does not mean its true.

When you are going to show me in Scripture where we see a celibate priest celebrating a mass?

Where in the supper accounts do we see the apostles believing "Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine" when He was sitting literally at the table with them? How can a human being be in 2 places at once?

Anonymous said...

Berhane Selassie,
Do you know your church has never infallibly-officially interpreted the verses of Scripture?

Your church does practice isogesis. Luke 1:28 is a classic example of reading into the text what is not there.

Anonymous said...

De Maria,
Is Cornelius à Lápide, Aquinas, Jesuits considered the official interpreters of the Scriptures by the RCC?

The Scripture is not a Roman Catholic book. The Roman Catholic church did not exist at the time of the NT.

Daniel said...

Anon,

If justification requires cleansing--and by that I am saying that the means in which Christ's work on the cross is applied to our situation include our repentance, sanctification, etc--then justification must be a process, not an immediate declaration by fiat.

Sure Christ's work was a one time act, but it doesn't get applied to me until the moment that grace disposes me to a change of heart AND what follows from a change of heart.

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

"Like I have said many times before: just because something is believed for a long time does not mean its true."

Not when it comes to faith and morals my progressive friend. That doesn't change. Under your standard above, you allow homosexuality to not be considered a sin under the whims of society. Your saying above works well in science, not so much in theology and faith and morals.

Where in scripture? Christ himself when he instituted the Mass.

The fact that you have no evidence of your position in history is strong evidence that your theological position is wrong and heretical. You are fully aware that Christian history is dominated by Catholicism (as it is still today) and yet you find no problem ignoring history even though history should prove your position right if it were so obvious.

Why isn't your position so obvious to the rest of history? You have better exegesis than men who studied the NT in their native Greek THEIR ENTIRE LIVES?

WHAT CHANGED? What gave your ilk some magical exegesis about scripture? Just better knowledge?

Anonymous said...

Daniel,
Justification by God is a one time act with continuing results. The way justified is used in Rom 3:24 is a legal or forensic term which means to "declare righteous".

Some of those results of justification are:
1-forgiveness of sin
2- made a child of God
3- given a new nature
4- desire to please God
5- desire to know God
6-conviction of sin and a desire to repent and seek forgiveness
7-we will no longer be judged for sin.
8-Christ lives in us and gives us His Spirit.
9- Christ's righteousness is imputed to us.


Sanctification is the process of God applying our justification to our lives. We are work out our salvation i.e. put sin out of our lives and pursue Christ-likeness. It is God who is at work in us and we are to work with God in our sanctification.

Daniel said...

By analogy, it's like you are objecting to our referencing the Federalists Papers because it's not a Supreme Court decision.

Where can I find the official interpretation of US laws?

I don't know if you have ever played with Westlaw but it really doesn't work the way you expect the Magesterium to work.

In fact the whole legal system is similar to theology.

It's very organic.

There is catechesis by those in communion with the bar association who teach the written statutes and the traditions of common law and case law.

There's levels of authority, with a final authority.

Violating the authority of the court gets you excommunicated from the bar.

Everyone is a lawyer in some sense ie litigant pro se like everyone is a priest in some sense.

But then there are ordained lawyers. And no one can be a lawyer for another without being ordained one. There is no alternative to the bar to be ordained (even if you 'read the law' which would be like skipping seminary). Ordained judges are like bishops.

It's not a perfect analogy, but it should be good enough to see why asking to see every official interpretation of a bible verse is silly.

Daniel said...

If sanctification is a result of justification and not a cause, then how does one lose one's state of being justified?

Can it be lost?

If it can be lost, how does that work. If sanctification was a cause of justification and not an effect, the answer is easy: sin wounds your justified state. Repent, and be restored to the justified state.

But if sanctification DOESN'T cause justification, then the lack of sanctification can't cause a lack of justification.


And then if you say you can't lose your state of justification, then does that mean if Im justified i can do whatever i want without effecting my salvation.

UNLESS, you made the distinction that if someone did that then they werent really justified, but only supposing they were based on a counterfeit salvation experience.

But if THAT is true, then the only way to determine if you are saved or not is sanctification today not some indeterminte future justification

That's a convoluted mess.

It's easier to say: I was saved at Calvary, I am by grace being saved by sanctification and continueous struggle of repentence working itself out with fear and trembling, so that I will be saved at the particular judgement and the last judgement.

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

Why isn't your position so obvious to the rest of history? You have better exegesis than men who studied the NT in their native Greek THEIR ENTIRE LIVES?

WHAT CHANGED?

Under your belief, scripture says justification was forensic and then how long until a group of believers outside of scripture indicated they believed justification was a forensic action AND such people were not Roman Catholics (stops the nonsense that Augustin and/or Aquinas were proto-protestants).

Certainly there would be others outside of Roman Catholicism.

Faith and morals don't change unless you're a progressive.

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw223

The RCC does not exegete Scripture. That's why you don't have an infallible-official work of the meaning of Scripture.

This is why you are so flummoxed by the word "justify" being forensic. You can't fathom the word means this and so you consider it nonsense.

Anonymous said...

Daniel,
Justification cannot be lost. A person who is of the elect (Eph 1:4)cannot lose his salvation because God has ordained them from eternity past to be saved. God is at work in the elect to bring their salvation to completion. Phil 1:6.

If our salvation depended on us and our efforts then it could be lost. Thank God it does not. See above.

The justified man is not free to do anything he wants. He is justified to bear fruit for Christ. He is to pursue Christ-likeness and put sin out of his life.

Your sanctification does not save you nor is your salvation dependent on your sanctification. It is God in Christ Who saves you and not yourself. He is the One Who secures our salvation.
Our assurance of salvation comes first from understanding our union in Christ. Secondly it comes from living out our salvation. See 2 Peter 1:5-11.

cwdlaw223 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cwdlaw223 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cwdlaw223 said...

So let me get this straight, there's NOTHING I can do to cause God to break the bondage of sin upon my soul to become justified? Absolutely nothing?

Anonymous said...

Yes. Salvation is all of Him. It is a gift that cannot be earned.

cwdlaw223 said...

I know it's nonsense from an epistemological standpoint. I used to be a Calvinist and fully understand your epistemological limitations with a progressive theological worldview. Christianity didn't start in 1,500 when a forensic view of justification was first created. A theological novum! Ask Allister McGrath.

cwdlaw223 said...

So my effort at having faith is meaningless?

cwdlaw223 said...

When are you going to tell me what changed which allowed better exegesis? Justification was never defined as forensic until the progressive reformers changed the definition.

WHAT CHANGED?

Anonymous said...

How can something that is taught in Scripture be a " theological novum"?

Your faith is the result of Christ empowering you to have it. If Christ did not give it then you don't have it.

Anonymous said...

Nothing changed. The word "justified" in Rom 3:24 has always had a forensic meaning.

It is the false who don't know this or ignore it.

De Maria said...

Anonymous said...
De Maria,
Is Cornelius à Lápide, Aquinas, Jesuits considered the official interpreters of the Scriptures by the RCC?


No. The Catholic Church is the official Teacher of the Word of God appointed by Jesus Christ (Matt 28:19-20).

The Scripture is not a Roman Catholic book. The Roman Catholic church did not exist at the time of the NT.

You're in denial. The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament.

Anonymous said...

You need to keep the distinctions in mind. Catholic and Roman Catholic are not the same things.

cwdlaw223 said...

Because you changed the meaning if the word justified! That's how. Your Protestant friend Allister McGrath was kind enough to coin that term because he knew nobody ever defined the word in a forensic/legal context.

If you must define the word in a forensic context, Catholics can believe that man is justified by faith, hope and charity. Faith is never alone.

Where is your support that justification was viewed as forensic? You don't see these words together until the Reformers created a new form of Christianity out of thin air based upon changing the definition of the word to a legal/forensic view. Nobody preached forensic justification. The fact that someone uses the word justification doesn't mean they use that word in a forensic context. That's your progressive error. Redefining the word so that your worldview fits. Sort of like dropping seven books from the Old Testament because they 're too Catholic.

cwdlaw223 said...

95% of Catholics are of the Roman rite so you are technically correct. However, there is nothing universal about Protestantism. Protestants are protesting by definition and cannot be universal.

Let me guess, you call your fellow Protestant a Catholic? I doubt it.

cwdlaw223 said...

"Nothing changed. The word "justified" in Rom 3:24 has always had a forensic meaning.

It is the false who don't know this or ignore it."

Great. Then it should be easy for you to name me some people in each century (say 5th-9th) who stated the justification was forensic.

Name these people!

Nick has proven on this site (as well as others) that the Greek word for justification never contemplated a forensic context. Never, ever.

There's a reason that the Eastern Orthodox didn't come up with this heresy either. Because it's not true and there's no history to support some other progressive trying to change the definition to fit into a legal context.

If so, give us some names of people in history (5th-9th) who stated justification was forensic. Don't give me some proto-protestant crap. Give me real deal forensic staters!

cwdlaw223 said...

"Your faith is the result of Christ empowering you to have it. If Christ did not give it then you don't have it."

Now if that isn't determinism and the complete denial of free will I don't know what is. There is no mystery between faith and grace in your world which is why you've (inadvertently I hope) created a theological structure whereby man is completely removed from his own salvation. Simply the roll of the dice.

cwdlaw223 said...

"If our salvation depended on us and our efforts then it could be lost. Thank God it does not. See above."

Then man's effort at trying to have faith is hopeless and therefore, man cannot be justified by faith alone because man is incapable of making any EFFORT for saving faith.

You logically destroy justification by faith alone with your statement above because by definition, man can't make any effort to have faith.

Anonymous said...

I already gave you the meaning of what Paul meant by justified and it includes the forensic aspect. It always meant this. That's its original meaning. Any change after this is false no matter what century it happens in. If they didn't teach it then they are false teachers.

What do you mean by freewill? Man is either a slave to sin or to Christ. There is no neutral position. The unsaved are slaves of sin.

It is God Who chooses whom He will save. It is all based on His choosing. To some He gives justice and some mercy. See Romans 9. To some He gives the gift of faith and some He does not. Only those drawn by the Father can come to Christ.

cwdlaw223 said...

And I told you that you were wrong to make justification a forensic issue. Nick has posted several good article on this site why the interpretation of the Greek by Protestants during the Reformation (it was never forensic in scripture or anytime thereafter) was WRONG.

You are wrong and preach a false gospel. How should you know this? Because you cannot find anyone in history prior to the Reformation preaching a gospel where the terms justification and forensic are even in the same sentence.

You just don't want to admit your wrong.

Now you've gone so far as to make Christianity a roulette wheel. No wonder you have such difficult facing history dead on because you won't like what you will find. Nobody believed like you did in history and you think that you're correct. That's pride and ignorance. I'll pray for your soul.

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw,
Since you have read Nick's works why don't you show some of the Greek experts he used that show that "justified" was never used in the forensic sense. Afterall, I have given you scholarly support for my view. Now its your turn to show me a RC scholar or 2 that claim justified never had anything to do with a forensic sense.

Again, even if no one used justification in a forensic sense until the reformation that would mean they were false teachers because the apostle Paul meant it that way.

Its not what people believed in history that matters but what did the Lord Jesus and His apostles teach. We already know men err. The only sure way to the truth is to know and believe what Christ and the apostles taught.

cwdlaw223 said...

What scholarly support?

If Chrst failed for 1,500 years he's a false prophet as evidenced by his own words in scripture. Why believe anything he said? Makes no sense. Of course, neither does your roulette wheel like view of Christianity.

Anonymous said...

Didn't Nick use some scholars to backup his claims?

The problem with error in the church is not due to Christ but to fallen men. That's why you should not believe everything your church says or teaches.

Berhane Selassie said...

Ralph:

you:Do you know your church has never infallibly-officially interpreted the verses of Scripture?

me: Actually, 1 John 1:9 is quoted by the dogmatic council of Carthage, to teach "we" *do* have real sin, and that we don't simply pretend to have it, 1 John 1:9 used to show that we cannot get forgiven of something we don't really have.

you:Your church does practice isogesis. Luke 1:28 is a classic example of reading into the text what is not there.

me: as I said before, I can produce a number of OT scriptures the NT quotes that can easily we claimed to be "eisegesis." Many of these are the quotation of the Psalms such as Psalm 69 and Psalm 42 as being about Jesus. Furthermore, Luke 1:28 is not truly eisegesis since it does say that grace preexisted the statement. When that grace first arrived is not plainly stated in the text, though generally in the bible it does mean something been in like that a while and will continue to be for a while after. This verse is not really relevant to the discussion at all, why not deal with the verses at hand like 1 john 1:9?

Anonymous said...

Berhane,
How does it follow that because something is quoted that means it's interpreted?

All sins have been paid for. The debt has been paid in full. The debt of sin has been cancelled.
1 John 1:9 is the promise of forgiveness when we sin. We are not yet perfect and we are to deal with sin by acknowledging it. When we do, God forgives and to cleanse us.

Ralph

cwdlaw223 said...

The problem with your analysis is that you fail to believe Christ built a physical Church in this earth to be lead by the Holy Spirit and you believe that could fail. If it failed, Christ is not the Messiah. Christ guaranteed his Bride would not fail. The supernatural is non-existent in your man made religion. If course, you're part of the elect so you don't need to make any work or effort. It will eventually come out at a later point in time and then you'll know you guaranteed salvation.

You shouldn't believe that you have all the answers or ignore history.

Nick didn't assert the use of "scholarly" backup, you did. I'll defer to Nick on this issue. Your claim that justification has always been forensic is wrong. Even the Protestant quote I included demonstrates this fact.

Keep calling a pumpkin a watermelon and hoping that its contents become sweet and juicy.

Berhane Selassie said...

Ralph:

you:When we do, God forgives and to cleanse us.

me: Amen, thus making Calvinism false. If he waits til we repent to forgive us then the idea of him "only seeing his son" when we sin cannot be true. Likewise, you cannot save eternal security, OSAS, "P" or whatever it should be called is true since a saved person cannot be needing forgiveness, because that is the exact opposite of what being "saved" is, in other words If you NEED to be saved from your sin, how can you ALREADY be saved?

Daniel said...

http://biblesuite.com/greek/1344.htm

Scroll to Thayer's Lexicon. I would have just pasted it here but it's too large to fit in the comment box.

Daniel said...

Anonymous,

So I better understand you:

Does God justify the ungodly?
Does forensic justification mean to you that God declares guilty people not guilty?
Does God infuse righteousness into us?
Does God impute righteousness into us?
Can someone once justified ever lose their salvation?
If you refuse sanctification, can you be saved?

Can you tell us more about how you think it all works so I don't misunderstand you.

Daniel said...

Sorry you answered the once justified lose your salvation question...

cwdlaw223 said...

(a) Faith = work or effort.

(b) Man cannot be justified by his work or effort.

(c) Thus, man cannot be justified by faith since faith is work and/or effort.

God gave us his Word to tell us that it's a total crap shoot and we are on the roulette wheel of salvation and there isn't a damng thing anyone can do about it.

There is no mystery between free will and grace. None. It is all pre-determined and man does not get a choice to accept or reject grace.

Just ask a Calvinist.

Anonymous said...

Berhane,
How does the fact that God forgives and cleanses us make Calvinism false?

A saved person does need forgiveness since the saved person lives his life in a fallen body that is susceptible to sin.

To be saved in a salvation sense means that person is no longer under condemnation. See Rom 8:1

Continual confession of sin is an indication of genuine salvation.
It is to acknowledge God's perspective about sin.

If OSAS is false then there is no such thing as salvation since salvation by Christ is eternal and nothing can destroy it. See John 10:28, Rom 8:38-39

Ralph

Anonymous said...

Daniel,
Yes God justifies the ungodly.
Justification describes what God declares about the believer, not what He does to change the believer.
Justification is a forensic, or purely legal, term. Its like getting married. When a person marries they are not changed in their person but their status before God and men has changed. So it is when God justifies us on the merits of Christ.

God imputes the righteousness of Christ to us. 2 Cor 5:21. We will not be made righteous until our glorification when Christ returns.

We cannot lose our salvation.

Sanctification is the result of justification. If a person refuses to put sin out of their lives and pursue Christ-likeness then that is an indication they never were in Christ.

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw,
a- faith is a gift and not a work. Rom 3:24-28
b- before God no man is justified by works. Gal 2:16

Our election to salvation is all by God alone. No one can work to be elect but it is all God's choosing. In fact it was done before the
foundation of the world. Eph 1:4

Daniel said...

Let's zoom in a bit.

What do you DISAGREE with in this article:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/TULIP.htm

Anonymous said...

There is lot there. Why don't you pick one issue from it then we can discuss?

Berhane Selassie said...

Ralph:

Romans 8 simply say there is NOW no condemnation to those that ARE in Christ. It does not exclude the possibility of future condemnation, or the possibility of leaving Christ. The simplest explanation of "salvation" is in terms of JEsus name "He shall save his people from their sins" condemnation is a consequence of not having sins forgiven. Romans 8 does not exclude sin, in fact 1 John says if we sin the love of Christ no longer abides in us. John 10 may very well just be about the elect.

How can you say a person who has YET to receive forgiveness is NOT condemned? I do not see a justification for this unusually middle state where a person is unforgiven but not condemned.

2 Corinthians 5:21 does not teach the Calvinist imputation doctrine. I simply says are made into the righteousness of GOD (it doesn't actually say Christ, Paul could have if he wanted to, NT Wright even made this point, arguing you have to understand righteousness of God as a technical term). Regardless, there is no basis for a phoney cloaked righteousness, Jesus preached against the Pharisees for their phoney righteousness (being pious be fore men but being wicked internally) calling them "white washed sepulchers" I doubt Jesus would essentially do the same to his followers by likewise superficially imputing them with an external cloak of righteousness so as to prevent the Father from seeing their internal sins--which is also a white wash sepulcher, "snow on manure" or whatever you wanna call it

The NT is only concerned with ACTUAL righteousness, the saint in Revelation are cloaked with white because of their WORKS, its not a Jesus cloaking garment to hide their bad works

cwdlaw223 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cwdlaw223 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

So in the end, man can do nothing to accept or reject grace from God? Sort of like a lottery and if you have the right ticket you have eternal life?

The elect always choose grace and the non-elect are left to their sin and therefore incapable of choosing grace?

That doesn't sound like good news for mankind at all. Sounds like a theological roulette wheel.

Let me guess, you know that youre elect!

Daniel said...

Wait wait wait. Stop the presses for the moment.

At the Solid Declaration of the of the Formula of Concord it was said in Section 31 (the Catholic Encylopedia mistakenly says Section 23, fyi):

"Moreover, neither contrition nor love or any other virtue, but faith alone is the sole means and instrument by which and through which we can receive and accept the grace of God, the merit of Christ, and the forgiveness of sins, which are offered us in the promise of the Gospel."

Faith without contrition is the solemeans in which we receive the forgiveness of sins?

Anonymous, is that your view or is that a dangerous heresy?

Anonymous said...

Daniel,
Faith alone in Christ alone is the only means of salvation. The Spirit convicts men of their sin and need of salvation. Part of that involves a deep deep sense of sin and knowledge that they have sinned against a holy God in whom they know they can never atone for those sins. They know they are deserving of condemnation. That is the bad news.

The good news is that Christ paid the price for those sins and belief in Him is what saves. See Rom 10:9-10.

Anonymous said...

Berhane,
No condemnation would include now and forever. The reason is that all our sins have been paid for at the cross. See Col 2:13-14. See also John 10:28, Rom 8:38-39 and Eph 1:4.

As we speak there are elect in the world who are not yet saved. Until they hear and believe in the gospel they are in this state of unforgiveness. God's knows who they are and will bring them to salvation.

Tell me then, what does 2 Cor 5:21 mean? How does your church interpret this verse?

Here is what the NAB (RC translation) footnote on this verse:
" [21] This is a statement of God's purpose, expressed paradoxically in terms of sharing and exchange of attributes. As Christ became our righteousness (⇒ 1 Cor 1:30), we become God's righteousness (cf ⇒ 2 Cor 5:14-15)."
This does not go far enough but its close.

Rom 5:15-18 also speaks of imputation.

The NT is concerned first with doctrine. Its from doctrine that the practical implications are derived.

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw,
God makes it possible for the man dead in sin (we were all in that state at one time--see eph 2:1-3) to have faith to believe in Christ.

The non-elect get the justice of God. God is not obligated to save any. The fact that He saves any is a sign of His mercy.

Those who have put their faith in Christ are of the elect. Characteristics of the elect are:
1-turning from sin
2- seeking to please God and Christ
3- devoted to Christ and wanting to serve Him.
4-living for the glory of God.
5-hunger for the Scripture.

If these things are absent from someone then there is no reason to think they are of the elect.

Daniel said...

I didn't understand your answer, Anonymous.

Faith without contrition is the solemeans in which we receive the forgiveness of sins?


Yes or No

Tell me plainly.

Anonymous said...

There are a number of components to this:
1-Christ paid the penalty for sin.
2-the sinner is to acknowledge his sin
3- the sinner is to repent
4-the sinner is to believe in Christ.
Rom 10:9-10

Being contrite about your sin is not enough to forgive it. You must believe that Christ died for those sins and rose again.

Daniel said...

Just so I hear you plainly,

If I said, no Anonymous! Faith without contrition is enough for my sins to be forgiven!

You would call me a heretic right?

Because that's what the Catholic Church called a heresy because of exactly what the Lutherans said at At the Solid Declaration of the of the Formula of Concord it was said in Section 31 "Moreover, neither contrition nor love or any other virtue, but faith alone is the sole means and instrument by which and through which we can receive and accept the grace of God, the merit of Christ, and the forgiveness of sins, which are offered us in the promise of the Gospel."

I just wanted to make sure you agree with me and the Catholic Church against Lutherans and their statement.

Anonymous said...

Contrition does not save. It does forgive you. It appears the Lutherans have it right i.e. faith alone (in Christ) is the way we are forgiven.

Anonymous said...

Correction: contrition does not forgive you. All it does is to show the state of your heart.

cwdlaw223 said...

Repenting and belief are EFFORT AND WORK. You said that man cannot obtain salvation by his work or effort and yet repenting and believing are effort and work.

You preach a works system of theology.

cwdlaw223 said...

How is there any good news if faith is a gift subject to the whims of God and man can do nothing?

cwdlaw223 said...

Can man reject the gift of faith?

Anonymous said...

Berhane,
If Jesus and His apostles call someone a prophet then that is enough. It would not matter what the Jews thought.

Anonymous said...

If these things are absent from someone then there is no reason to think they are of the elect.

1 - There are a large bunch of people with these characteristics, who are reprobated. They are like Judas...

2 - The thief in the cross had none of these 'signals'.

Credulo

Anonymous said...

It is true that the thief on cross did not have these characteristics manifested before he died. Jesus saved him right at that moment.

Ralph

cwdlaw223 said...

Ralph -

Can man reject the gift of faith (which you assert is not from man but a gift from God)?

Berhane Selassie said...

You said:No condemnation would include now and forever. The reason is that all our sins have been paid for at the cross. See Col 2:13-14. See also John 10:28, Rom 8:38-39 and Eph 1:4.

Me: it says "now" and "in Christ" if you are ALWAYS in Christ there will never be condemnation, but does this saying anything about leaving Christ? Colossians 2 is just saying Jesus blotted out the bond, or had it nailed to the cross. That's it. Already mentioned JOhn 10 and Romans 8, it does not exclude sin. Ephesians 1:4 is for later.

you:As we speak there are elect in the world who are not yet saved. Until they hear and believe in the gospel they are in this state of unforgiveness. God's knows who they are and will bring them to salvation.

me: yes, ok?

you:Tell me then, what does 2 Cor 5:21 mean? How does your church interpret this verse?

me: Its a figure of speech, poetic way of putting things, Christ became "sin" that is an offering for sin, so that we can become righteous by having our sins forgiven by the offering for sin.

you:Rom 5:15-18 also speaks of imputation.

me: how so?

Berhane Selassie said...

Ralph:

you said: If Jesus and His apostles call someone a prophet then that is enough. It would not matter what the Jews thought.

me: Remember different people use words differently. For example how John uses the word "world" is not how the OT uses the word, or not Matthew uses the word. The same thing goes with the words Prophet and the Apostles. The word apostle in the gospel refers to the 12, then later in Acts 14:14 is expands to those outside the 12, then later in acts it expands even further than that seemingly even being applied to the woman Junia. The word prophet has similar different meanings "the law and the prophets were TIL Christ" yet we are told of several prophets in the Church in Acts of the apostles. Its interesting in the Islamic era in the middle east, Christians would debate Muslims, one of the arguments used by the NEstorians against the Caliph was that there were no Prophets after Jesus, at which point the quoted several texts from Genesis, Daniel, and the gospels, then they said Muhammed could not be a prophet since there would be no more prophets! Now does this mean there could be no prophets in the sense of those of Acts who could predict things? I don't think so! Certainly muhammed was not this type of prophet!

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw,
Not if he is of the elect. He may reject for awhile but God's choosing cannot be thwarted. Look at Jonah.

Anonymous said...

Berhane,
There is nothing in Scripture about condemnation being for the elect. Col 2 deals with all the sin the elect will commit. Eph 1:4 is about the elect being chosen before they were born. If it were possible for a man to lose salvation he never regain it back. See Hebrews 6:4-6

How is 2 Cor 5:21 a poetic figure of speech? Did Christ literally die for our sins or not? Have we truly become the righteousness of God?

In regards to Rom 5:15-18, Christ's righteousness has been imputed to us just as the one sinful act of Adam was imputed to mankind.

cwdlaw223 said...

How can anyone reject the gift of faith for "awhile"? That's impossible. God's power in your world can't be that weak when he gives such a gift to the elect.

Daniel said...

Your clarifications leave me more unsure of what you believe than before you clarified.

True or false. A person can be justified without repentance?

A person can be justified without contrition for their sins?

Anonymous said...

Daniel,
God elects, brings the gospel to the elect, they repent because of the work of the HS and are justified when they believe the gospel.

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw,
There are many cases of people rejecting the gospel for awhile and later coming to believe it.

Daniel said...

I'm not talking about people who have the Gospel brought to them, they repent, and are justified.

I'm asking about justification for people who believe but do not feel contrition for their sins.

Please answer for THAT scenario.

Berhane Selassie said...

Ralph:

you:There is nothing in Scripture about condemnation being for the elect.

me: If you are referring to final condemnation, then yes, if we take the bibles refers to the elect as being set in stone. The bible seems to use the word elect in different usages, at times it implies "election" can be lost. However, that does not change the fact that God already foreknew who would be saved, these elect that will be saved in the end, their number cannot change.

you:Col 2 deals with all the sin the elect will commit.

me: I don't see how Colossians 2 is limiting it just to the elect

you:Eph 1:4 is about the elect being chosen before they were born. I

me: I have no problem saying the elect were chosen before they were born.

you:If it were possible for a man to lose salvation he never regain it back. See Hebrews 6:4-6

me: not true, the orthodox interpretation of this verse has always been this is referring to regeneration--that is you cannot be regenerate again. Its a one time act that cannot be repeated, a lapsed person can return, but they cannot be baptized.

you:How is 2 Cor 5:21 a poetic figure of speech? Did Christ literally die for our sins or not?

me: He did not LITERALLY become sin. Its a figure of speech for sin offering, St Paul is using this expression found in the OT to state a theological concept.


you:Have we truly become the righteousness of God?

me: Yes, and will continue to be if we abide in Christ by staying in grace, which includes commandment keeping, otherwise it makes God's righteousness fake righteousness.

you: In regards to Rom 5:15-18, Christ's righteousness has been imputed to us just as the one sinful act of Adam was imputed to mankind.

me: The doctrine of original sin states that the sons of Adam were born with sinful tendencies lacking righteousness from conception. I do admit I don't always understand what the heck Paul is saying, or why he talks the he does, probably why 2 peter says hes hard to understand. I've seen people read this same passage as PAul teaching universalism.

cwdlaw223 said...

Isn't the gift of faith a form of grace?

cwdlaw223 said...

Isn't the gift of faith a form of grace?

Anonymous said...

Daniel,
If a person does not feel contrition for their sins then they would not want salvation. Salvation is about forgiveness of sin. If a person does not feel remorse for wrongdoing then they are not going to repent and seek forgiveness.

I John 1:10 speaks to this were it says--"If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us."

Anonymous said...

Berhane
If Christ paid the price for all sin that all men commit then there can be no such thing as hell. Hell is about punishment for sin and if Christ death paid for every sin that mankind committed then there would be no need for hell. This is why Colossians 2 is Christ death is payment for sin for the elect only.
Was the “lapsed” person in Hebrews 6:4-6 regenerated? Was he justified? If he was, then this means that once salvation is lost, it cannot be regained.

Is there such a thing as sin or is it just a figure of speech? Did God literally punish Christ for all the sins of the elect?
Where does 2 Corinthians 5:21 say anything about our becoming the righteousness of God by our keeping the commandments?

Notice what Paul says in Romans 5:12--- Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— Adam passed to all his descendants the inherent sinful nature he possessed because of his first disobedience. It’s like he passed on his genes. Because he was the first man, his genes were passed on to everyone born after him.

Anonymous said...

The gift of faith would be a form of grace.

cwdlaw223 said...

So grace can be rejected or resisted? Or do you believe the gift of faith comes and goes (even if someone is the elect from birth).

cwdlaw223 said...

Someone in faith cannot reject the gospel.

Daniel said...

Anonymous,

That's just not true. There are practising gay people who feel no remorse and expect Christ to save them.

Hell, it was Martin Luther himself who said "Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ more strongly, who triumphed over sin, death, and the world; as long as we live here, we must sin."

Or to sample some others who believed this, there were the Antinomianists or some hyperCalvinists.

Anonymous said...

Daniel,
How can someone who embraces homosexuality be of the kingdom of God when I Cor 6:9-10 says that those who practice it are not of the kingdom?

Those homosexuals who embrace it are deceiving themselves since they give evidence of not being in the kingdom.

cwdlaw223 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

The same progressivism that leads people to interpret scripture to exclude homosexual practices as sin is the same progressivism that drove the Reformation. Exactly the same thought pattern where words are twisted for ones own predisposed purpose. Faith and morals can change in the Protestant world because there are no standards but man's interpretation of scripture by himself. Scripture doesn't interpret itself nor does it state what is scripture.

Of course, man can't even figure out what is scripture and if 7 books of the OT are too Catholic you can reject them as well. There is NO PROTESTANT BIBLE on this earth for 1,300-1,400 years. Progressives are always trying to reformulate the world in their own image.

Both think they have a better interpretation of scripture for the present. No fidelity to history and everyone in history was dumb and stupid and therefore couldn't exegete scripture properly.

Do you believe that grace can be rejected or resisted? I assume your answer is yes in light of your posts above.

Daniel said...

That's my point. If you are proud of sinning boldly or at least aren't sorry that you did, then you CANNOT BE FORGIVEN.

And therefore that Lutheran statement of faith was wrong, and the RCC was right to condemn that as heresy.

Anonymous said...

Actually the majority of RC's are for homosexuality in America. Just look at the polls. A majority of Catholics (56 percent) favor lifting the ban against homosexual leaders in the Boy Scouts.
Read more at http://global.christianpost.com/news/poll-most-americans-want-boy-scouts-to-lift-ban-on-gay-members-95683/#JS5JRLyTtORwR8hP.99

Most are also in favor of gay marriage.... and this is with a pope and an infallible magesterium. Go figure.

Anonymous said...

Daniel,
Here is what Scripture says about sinning:

"What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?"

Rom 6:1-2

cwdlaw223 said...

Those "Catholics" aren't Catholic and have excommunicated themselves. That's like calling Mit Romney a Protrstant.

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

How can faith/grace be rejected for "awhile"? Nobody with Faith can reject the gospel.

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw,
We can grieve the HS and resist the grace-power of God in our lives while sinning. Since we live in fallen flesh this happens. This is why 1 John 1:9 is necessary.

cwdlaw223 said...

Am I correct you reject Calvin's doctrine of irresistible grace? Seems like you do.

Anonymous said...

No. Irresistible grace refers to the biblical truth that whatever God decrees to happen will inevitably come to pass, even in the salvation of individuals.

http://www.gotquestions.org/irresistible-grace.html#ixzz2T2EERbP3

cwdlaw223 said...

Wait a minute. If God decreed for someone to be the elect and have faith, how can man reject/resist the gospel? If someone rejects/resists the gospel they can't have faith.

You said that God decrees the elect and only the elect have faith. Then you indicated that these same elect/faithful can reject/resist the gospel. It's impossible for someone to truly have faith and reject the gospel. That's an oxymoron, unless, you recognize the free will of man to accept or reject grace.

Anonymous said...

Before the elect hear and believe the gospel they are dead in their trespasses and sins. When the HS works in them and gives them faith to believe the gospel then they no longer resist.

cwdlaw223 said...

How could irresistible grace work on a totally depraved person so as not to be forcing him to believe against his will?


Why must we preach the gospel in order for people to be saved? If man plays no part at all in his conversion, which you admit he doesn't, why must he hear the gospel to be saved? A Calvinist who is logically honest must agree that preaching cannot have any persuasive power of one who is totally depraved.

If man has nothing to do with his repentance because the ability to repent is God’s gift, then why did Paul so often reason with the Jews from the Scriptures to prove that Jesus was the Messiah (e.g., see Acts 17:2-4)? Why did he attempt to “persuade men” (2 Cor. 5:11) and beg people to be “reconciled to God”? (2 Cor. 5:20). Why do we read in Acts 28:24 (as Paul reasoned with the Jews about Jesus), “And some were being persuaded by the things spoken, but others would not believe” (emphasis added)? Why did Paul write, “I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some” (1 Cor. 9:22, emphasis added)? Why did he write that the Jews hindered him from “speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved (1 Thes. 2:16, emphasis added)?

Anonymous said...

The simple answer is that the Lord Christ commanded His disciples to preach the gospel and engage the culture. God's knows who the elect are and has chosen the preaching of the gospel as the primary means to save men. After all it is power of God unto salvation.

Keep in mind that the issue with man is not his will but his heart. Its from the heart that man chooses. Only God can change the heart.

cwdlaw223 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cwdlaw223 said...

The elect are already saved so your reasoning makes not sense. They don't need the gospel if God truly determined that they are elect and saved.

Preaching is completely lost upon the non-elect. Engage culture? That makes no sense if God already chose the elect without any mystery between man's ability to accept or reject grace.

A drowning man is wholly incapable of saving himself, but is completely capable of thrashing free from the one who would save him, sinners are free to resist and prevent God from working in them

Anonymous said...

When the elect are born they are not saved at that point. They must hear and believe in the gospel.

Preaching is not completely lost on the non-elect. In the judgement they will be without excuse if they have heard the gospel. Just look at the condemnation that Jesus pronounced on those cities that rejected Him.

The sinner is an enemy of God (Rom 5) and unless God intervenes the sinner is doomed.

cwdlaw223 said...

So if the non-elect doesn't hear the gospel they're saved?

How can the elect "believe" in the Gospel if their will is totally depraved? You put belief and hearing before the elect are saved. Yet you also state that faith is a gift from God thereby removing any ability of man to cooperate with grace.

Anonymous said...

No. The non-elect who don't hear the gospel are not saved.

Here is how Eph 3:1-7 answers your question:
"And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,
2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.
3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,
5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus."

Only God can change a man from being depraved to being alive in Christ.

Daniel said...

From Jimmy Akin:

This is the principal issue between Thomists and Molinists. [29] Thomists claim this enabling grace is intrinsically efficacious; by its very nature, because of the kind of grace it is, it always produces the effect of salvation. Molinists claim God's enabling grace is only sufficient and is made efficacious by man's free choice rather than by the nature of the grace itself. For this reason Molinists say that enabling grace is extrinsically efficacious rather than intrinsically efficacious. [30]

A Catholic can agree with the idea that enabling grace is intrinsically efficacious and, consequently, that all who receive this grace will repent and come to God. Aquinas taught, "God's intention cannot fail... Hence if God intends, while moving it, that the one whose heart he moves should attain to grace, he will infallibly attain to it, according to John 6:45, 'Everyone that has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.'" [31] Catholics must say that, while God may give efficacious grace only to some, he gives sufficient grace to all. This is presupposed by the fact that he intended the atonement to be sufficient for all. Vatican II stated, "[S]ince Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate calling of man is in fact one and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery." [32]

29. Some Molinists, such as Bellarmine and Suarez, almost have bee Thomists. they agreed with almost all that Thomism says, such as its affirmation of unconditional election, but they resisted the idea that grace is intrinsically efficacious.

30. One should note Thomists do believe in free will, although not the sort Molinists believe in. They claim God's grace establishes what will be freely chosen, but in a way that does not disturb the will's freedom. Aquinas said, "God changes the will without forcing it. But he can change the will from the fact that he himself operates in the will as he does in nature," De Veritatis 22:9.

31. ST I-II:112:3.

32. Gaudium et Spes 22; "being associated with this paschal mystery" means being saved.

Berhane Selassie said...

Ralph:

you:If Christ paid the price for all sin that all men commit then there can be no such thing as hell. Hell is about punishment for sin and if Christ death paid for every sin that mankind committed then there would be no need for hell. This is why Colossians 2 is Christ death is payment for sin for the elect only.

Me:Stop change Paul's words, what does Paul actually say in Colossians 2

**Blotting** out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and ***took it out of the way***, ****nailing**** it to his cross;

Stop interjecting words like "pay" into this passage, it only uses terms for REMOVAL.

The benefits of Christ's death was for ALL of mankind, meaning ANYONE who repented and believed on him can have salvation. Simply being "purchased" or "redeemed" by Christ DOES NOT make a person automatically heavenbound, since the prophets in 2 Peter 2:1 were bought and burn in hell.

you:Was the “lapsed” person in Hebrews 6:4-6 regenerated?

me: YES, it says the were enlightened, which is an ancient expression for regeneration, and especially for BAPTISM, which the Aramaic texts actually use the word for.

you:Was he justified?

me: YES, it says they SHARED in the Holy Spirit!

you:If he was, then this means that once salvation is lost, it cannot be regained.

me: Lets pretend it DOES mean that, since nothing in Hebrews 6 says its hypothetical, admit you can lose salvation.

The passage is not saying salvation cannot be regained at all, it is saying regeneration cannot be duplicated, that why it uses the term "renewed." Being born again is one time act, even if you were to apostacize and come back, you cannot be rebaptized.

St John Chrysostom lived just 300 years after the gospel was written, and was fluent in the language, read his commentary on this passage http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240209.htm

notice he says repentance can and does happen, but the "renewable" CANNOT, since baptism is a one time act where we die WITH CHRIST.

you:Is there such a thing as sin or is it just a figure of speech?

me: Where did you even get that question?

you:Did God literally punish Christ for all the sins of the elect?

me: Define "punished." God does not punish innocent people for the crimes of the wicked, they maybe innocent casualties, but God does not punish the just for the wicked, in fact God says that is AGAINST the law in Deuteronomy to do such a thing. And if he was being punished in our place, then he belongs to burn in hell. Either way you'd be making God unjust.

you:Where does 2 Corinthians 5:21 say anything about our becoming the righteousness of God by our keeping the commandments?

me: We made righteous at regeneration, we lose that righteousness the moment we commit sin, since 1 John 1:9 calls sin "unrighteousness." We do not BECOME righteous by keeping the commandments, but we do LOSE it by breaking it.

you: Notice what Paul says in Romans 5:12--- Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— Adam passed to all his descendants the inherent sinful nature he possessed because of his first disobedience. It’s like he passed on his genes. Because he was the first man, his genes were passed on to everyone born after him.

you: avoid stuff like sinful genes, there is no sin gene, you cannot do a DNA test and see what sins were committed. We like Adam are actually guilty of sin

Anonymous said...

Berhane,
It is appropriate to use the terms “Christ paid the price for all sin” and “pay”. Verse 14 -2:14 canceled out the certificate of debt. This refers to the handwritten certificate of debt by which a debtor acknowledged his indebtedness.

It absolutely does mean that for those whom Christ redeemed have salvation and are heaven bound. False prophets were not redeemed.

Enlightened in Hebrews 6:4- means They had received instruction in biblical truth which was accompanied by intellectual perception. It is not regeneration.
To be a “partaker” and “have tasted” does not mean they have salvation. During the ministry of Jesus many heard Him teach and saw His miracles and may have personally benefited from them but that does not mean that were regenerated. Its like many people today who are in churches who hear the gospel and serve in the church and yet are not regenerated.
Where are you getting the idea of baptism in this passage?

A good illustration of Christ being punished for sin can be seen in Is 53. Crucifixion is a form of punishment.

No one is innocent of sin. The only One was, is the Lord Christ who in His body on the cross took on all the sins of the world and was punished by God for them. “For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust,...” I Peter 3:18. God is not unjust for punishing Christ for our sins. If He had not, then you are still in your sins and condemned.


There is nothing in Scripture that says we lose our righteousness the minute we sin. Our righteousness is the result of our union with Christ. It is unbreakable.

It is true that we are to seek righteousness and to live righteously. This is why the Scripture commands us to “work out our salvation in fear and trembling”. We are to actively pursue our sanctification in obedience to Christ. When we sin, we don’t lose our righteousness but we can diminish it and it grieves the HS.

I only used the analogy of genes being passed on to make the point how we inherit Adam’s sin nature. There is no sin gene.

Daniel said...


There is nothing in Scripture that says we lose our righteousness the minute we sin.



But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, [and] doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked [man] doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

cwdlaw223 said...

But you said man must hear and believe before he will be saved by the gift of faith. Are you now allowing totally depraved man a spark to determine if he can believe? Seems like you are.

Anonymous said...

Daniel,
What is the context of the passage you quote?

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw,
No. Only Christ can make a man "alive" (eph 2:5) and make it possible for the depraved man to believe and be saved.

cwdlaw223 said...

Sounds like bad news to me. The bad news being that man has no role but for God to force him to go against his totally depraved nature and only the "elect" (who are chosen by God on his whims) will be saved.

There's a reason nobody believed this made up heresy in history. It's ridiculous. Makes no sense whatsoever that Christ would die for only the "elect" and not try to give mankind as a whole the chance of salvation. If you preach to the elect they're already saved in your world and the non-elect are already damned. Meaningless method. "Engaged society"? Whatever that means. You don't need to engage the non-elect nor the elect since both are already pre-determined to be saved or not.



Anonymous said...

It is bad news. I agree. However, it is good news (gospel) because God sent Christ into the world to save those whom would believe.

You seem to be making your will your god. Your will is powerful enough to resist the power of God.

You are typical of the RC's I encounter. They don't understand what Christ came to do and why.

If Christ death for sin applies to all then all must be saved since their sins have been paid for. It would be injustice for God to punish men for sins that have already been atoned for, The problem with this is that Scripture tells us that those who are forgiven in Christ are not damned. It also tells us that many will be damned. That's why the Scripture teaches the doctrine of election. Only the elect from the foundation of the world are saved.

God does not owe all of mankind salvation.

Some elect in the world are not saved because they have yet to believe in the gospel. God will provide the means for them to believe it.

We are to engage to culture as witness for Christ so that they will be without excuse. Many have heard but have rejected the message.

cwdlaw223 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cwdlaw223 said...

"However, it is good news (gospel) because God sent Christ into the world to save those whom would believe."

The statement above makes no logical sense. The elect are already saved and therefore there is no "would believe" for the elect. Would believe implies a choice. You give man no choice.

cwdlaw223 said...

Will believe, not would believe! That's the consequence on your worldview.

Clint said...

I don't understand why a post about Justification and Sanctification leads to debating the late heresy of Limited Atonement.

cwdlaw223 said...

The nature of Protestantism is chaos.

Daniel said...

I'm confused why good Catholics are so quick to call limited atonement a heresy. You all are Molinists, I get that. But many Catholics characterize atonement as sufficient for all but efficacious for some just like many garden variety Calvinists.

We could ask Anonymous what he means before we throw around the word heresy.

Berhane Selassie said...

Anonymous: I wont have much time in the next week or two to answer much, what I will say is Catholic does not believe in penal substitution, so we do not have to worry about universalism, that's the worry of 4 point Calvinists and others that want to believe in unlimited atonement and penal sub.

Illumination in the ancient world, in Christianity and Judaism (as well as other religions) referred to baptism. Here is what Jewish encyclopedia says:

The expression that the person baptized is illuminated (φωτισθείς, Justin, "Apologiæ," i. 65) has the same significance as is implied in telling a proselyte to Judaism, after his bath, that he now belongs to Israel, the people beloved of God (Yeb. 47a; Gerim i.).

You will also see the Peshitta text using the BAPTISM instead of enlightenment.

you: To be a “partaker” and “have tasted” does not mean they have salvation. During the ministry of Jesus many heard Him teach and saw His miracles and may have personally benefited from them but that does not mean that were regenerated. Its like many people today who are in churches who hear the gospel and serve in the church and yet are not regenerated.
Where are you getting the idea of baptism in this passage?

me: this is the same Calvinist song and dance ive heard for years. It says the PARTOOK of the HOLY SPIRIT, it doesn't say they receieved, it says PARTOOK, no mention of miracles, or hearing some really good preaching. Heb 3:1 uses similar wording. I honestly I don't believe you think your explanation of partakers is a good one, generally this is a point the Calvinists I've discussed with were quick to move away from.

Nick already addressed this verse in a previous enter. You make it sound like if these people are elect, but leave the church, thinking they were saved, but were not YET, cannot come back. The verses says to "repentance AGAIN," do you think their first repentance was fake too?

Anonymous said...

Clint,
How could there not be limited atonement when many will be condemned and few saved? see Matt 7:13-14.

cwdlaw223 said...

Because limited atonement for the "elect" isn't taught in scripture or tradition. It is a man made idea made up during the Reformation to make their theology fit.

How could Jesus be both a man and God? You don't allow for any mystery/supernatural in your thinking and which is why you interpret scripture incorrectly.

cwdlaw223 said...

Here is an excellent article that summarizes the debate correctly:

http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/05/did-christ-die-for-all-or-just-many.html

Calvinists believe that the elect "will" believe (not would or might believe) and man has no ability whatsoever to cooperate with grace or not.

Anonymous said...

How could there not be limited atonement given that only the elect (Eph 1:4) are those for whom Christ died?

Keep in mind that there was a lot of superstitious theologies before the Protestant Reformation. That's why doctrines like limited atonement were unknown for the most part. The Bible was not being taught nor preached in this period that much if at all. One of the things the reformers brought back was biblical preaching.

Jesus is fully God and fully man. You should read Phil 2:5-8.

Anonymous said...

The "natural-dead in his sins" man cannot respond-believe by his own efforts. It takes the work of God to make it possible. Without it, nothing can happen and in fact this man thinks the things of God are foolishness.

cwdlaw223 said...

"The "natural-dead in his sins" man cannot respond-believe by his own efforts."

Why don't you just say that man is forced against his will to believe and can't cooperate with grace?

You preach a gospel of determinism in which no gospel is necessary. The elect are already saved and wouldn't need to hear anything.

There's a reason nobody in history believed in total depravity until the Reformers made up their twisted version of Christianity off the back of Rome.

I never met a Calvinists who thought they were part of the non-elect. Intoxicating feeling to believe that you're saved but others are not. Intellectual Pride at work.

You are completely wrong, misguided and state a false gospel.

cwdlaw223 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cwdlaw223 said...

My point about Jesus being both man and God is lost upon you. You would never, ever have come to that conclusion without Rome. Look up the Arian heresy. It was much worse than Protestantism. Man can come up with twisted version of the gospel (like you do) with just plain reasoning. The supernatural is necessary or man believes anything.

Anonymous said...

Berhane,
Why use sources outside the NT to understand the NT? Why don't you use RC sources?

Baptism is not mentioned in Heb 6 and it has nothing to do with being a enlightened.

This is where I wish you RC's had some support from your infallible interpreter then we could deal with what your church teaches rather than your private interpretations that are off the mark.

Their "first repentance" would not have been genuine given that they have fallen away.

Anonymous said...

Nonsense. Rome is not necessary to understand the Scripture. If anything, Rome is an obstacle to understanding the Scripture given how they have used their doctrines to pervert the Scripture.

The Council of Chalcedon was convened by Emperor Marcian and not the bishop of Rome. It was at this council that determine the nature of Christ.

cwdlaw223 said...

Only a nut would claim a Catholic Church Council is not part of Rome. There is no hope for you. The world is flat!

Keep avoiding and obfuscating history so your false, made up gospel will work. Next the Arian heresy didn't exist. You take for granted the pillars of Christian theology laid down by Rome as though they were obvious. Post modern man hard at work.

There is no scripture but/for Rome. It's the Church created by Christ and therefore the only thing on earth that has such authority to determine scripture that you take for granted and remove seven books from the OT because they're too Catholic.

Steve Dalton said...

Nick, I don't know what's going on, but you've really been on fire lately. Keep up the good work!

Berhane Selassie said...

Ralph:

you:Why use sources outside the NT to understand the NT? Why don't you use RC sources?

me: this is damned if you do, damned it you don't type question, "why did you use an RC source" "why didn't you use an RC source." "the Pope was in hitler youth because hes a monster" "the pope left Hitler youth showing he's a deserter" (I've seriously had someone tell me the last one). If you looked up the reference you'd have seen sT Justin Martyr in the 2nd century on this matter:

And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed."
Justin Martyr,First Apology,61(A.D. 110-165),in ANF,I:183

In addition I already mentioned the Peshitta.

you:Baptism is not mentioned in Heb 6

me: Please read verse 2.

you:and it has nothing to do with being a enlightened.

me: verse 2 again, see St Justin Martyr. And of course you'd reject any insinuation of baptism regeneration, despite its massive undeniable historical support.

you:This is where I wish you RC's had some support from your infallible interpreter then we could deal with what your church teaches rather than your private interpretations that are off the mark.

me: Not everything must be ex cathedra declared by the Papacy, if there's been no dispute over a verse, to a Catholic the fact the Father had consensus on a version, especially in regards to a matter such as baptism, is good enough and is BINDING on them to believe. You will see Fathers in East and West stating Hebrews 6:4 is referring to a person not being allowed to be REBAPTIZED, this verse was significant when there were heretics in the early days that took you view that sinner could not rejoin the Church, or when people rebaptized people who were in heretical sects.

you:Their "first repentance" would not have been genuine given that they have fallen away.

me: too bad nothing direct says, or even hints at implying this is referring to fake repentance are just going off of the Calvinist need to keep your TULIP from being a TULI.

Anonymous said...

Berhane,
Justin Martyr was not a Roman Catholic. Be that as it may, Justin is not referring to Hebrews 6. He makes no reference to it. What does “he who is illuminated is washed" mean in reference to Jesus?


In Hebrews 6:2 the word you have for “baptisms” is also translated “washings” in the NASB which refers to the OT Levitical system. There were many ceremonial cleansings, which were outward signs of heart cleansing (cf. Ex 30:18–21; Lv 16:4, 24, 26, 28; Mk 7:4, 8). If the author is referring to the Old Testament it would mean washings and not baptisms since there are no baptism in the Old Testament. Even the NAB seems to concur in verse 4 in a footnote that its not baptism that is being referred to. “ Enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift: this may refer to baptism and the Eucharist, respectively, but more probably means the neophytes' enlightenment by faith and their experience of salvation."

In regards to the term “repentance” in verse 6 means a change of mind from evil to good or from good to better. If they have turned from Christ they cannot turn again to Him since it is impossible to renew them again to repentance. To “renew” means to “to renew, Occurs only in Heb. 6:6, meaning to have a new or qualitatively different kind of repentance which would see the person who had it through to the very end. “ They may have repented but it was not a repentance that was lasting.

The “TULIP” is not the best acronym for the 5 points of Calvinism. What matters is that the 5 points are true and biblical.



cwdlaw223 said...

John Calvin was not a Calvinist. The Pope was a Protestant. If you write it down it must be true.

Just keep making up fiction and hoping that history changes so your theological progressivism works.

There is nothing in scripture about "5 points" and such heresy should be rejected for violating sola scriptura. Scripture doesn't need to be interpreted. Scripture is Scripture. Just state scripture. That's all you need. Nothing more, nothing less. It says so in the index: No Interpreter Needed.

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw,
Your pretty messed up in your understanding. Scripture does indeed need to be interpreted as do your church teachings. There is no way to understand something without interpreting and each person who hears or reads interprets.
Even your doctrines are the result of interpretations.

btw- the 5 points of Calvinism are grounded on Scripture. Take Total Depravity. It is based on "Man’s heart is evil (Mark 7:21-23) and sick Jer. 17:9). Man is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:20). He does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12). He cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). He is at enmity with God (Eph. 2:15). And, is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3)." http://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm

cwdlaw223 said...

Upon what authority is your interpretation of scripture better than anyone else?

I didn't ask for 5 points being "grounded" in scripture. That's not enough. Total sola scriptura like total depravity. Otherwise, you start bringing in extra-biblical, man made interpretations if it's not total sola scriptura. Of course, once you go down that road you could never figure out the Trinity.

cwdlaw223 said...

Nick -

I think you have a title for a new article: "Total Sola Scriptura."

If Ps let anything be "grounded" or "inferred" in scripture (ex. the Trinity, Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed) they should reject these man made constructs because its not stated in scripture. Just like total depravity, man can't any any role in his salvation or properly interpret God's word.

Anonymous said...

Good interpretations of Scripture are based on the facts of Scripture. That's why Calvinism is so powerful and has not been refuted by its enemies.

Daniel said...

Justin Martyr was not a Roman Catholic.

Oh please.

No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes that what we teach is true, unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ.

We do not consume the eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Savior became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilates for its nourishment becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of his own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving.

The apostles, in their recollections, which are called gospels, handed down to us what Jesus commanded them to do. They tell us that he took bread, gave thanks and said: Do this in memory of me. This is my body. In the same way he took the cup, he gave thanks and said: This is my blood. The Lord gave this command to them alone. Ever since then we have constantly reminded one another of these things. The rich among us help the poor and we are always united. For all that we receive we praise the Creator of the universe through his Son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit.
On Sunday we have a common assembly of all our members, whether they live in the city or the outlying districts. The recollections of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as there is time. When the reader has finished, the president of the assembly speaks to us; he urges everyone to imitate the examples of virtue we have heard in the readings. Then we all stand up together and pray.

On the conclusion of our prayer, bread and wine and water are brought forward. The president offers prayers and gives thanks to the best of his ability, and the people give assent by saying, “Amen”. The eucharist is distributed, everyone present communicates, and the deacons take it to those who are absent.

The wealthy, if they wish, may make a contribution, and they themselves decide the amount. The collection is placed in the custody of the president, who uses it to help the orphans and widows and all who for any reason are in distress, whether because they are sick, in prison, or away from home. In a word, he takes care of all who are in need.

We hold our common assembly on Sunday because it is the first day of the week, the day on which God put darkness and chaos to flight and created the world, and because on that same day our savior Jesus Christ rose from the dead. For he was crucified on Friday and on Sunday he appeared to his apostles and disciples and taught them the things that we have passed on for your consideration.“

Anonymous said...

Roman Catholicism did not exist at the time of Justin Martyr. That's just a fact of history and theology.

cwdlaw223 said...

Neither did Christianity itself! The Mass that Justin writes about was secretly for the Angel Moroni. That's what he meant, not the real presence. There was no universal Church created by Christ at Pentecost. It was merely symbolic that man could create his own Church from scripture.

Keep kidding yourself and making up new history to suit your worldview. That's what progressives do.

Here's the latest you should know about Total Sola Scriptura:

Scripture does not say it needs an interpreter so any claim it does is false. The elect don't need to interpret scripture because scripture is plainly clear and no additional interpretation is needed for the elect. If additional interpretation is needed you aren't part of the elect. If you add any word to scripture to interpret it you've diluted God's word and now include traditions of men. Scripture is all you need and the elect will automatically become literate when in the presence of the Word.


Removing all sense of logic, reason and history is fun. The problem is the heretical doctrines that develop from man who keeps trying to make the world and history in his own image.

Daniel said...

Justin Martyr was not a Roman Catholic...

But forgetfulness having taken possession of theminds of men, through the long-suffering of God, hasacted recklessly in transferring to mortals the name which is applicable to the only true God; and from the few the infection of sin spread to the many, who were blinded by popular usage to the knowledge of that which was lasting and unchangeable. For the men of former generations, who instituted private and public rites in honour of such as were more powerful, caused forgetfulness of the Catholic faith to take possession of their posterity; but I, as I have just stated, along with a God-loving mind, shall employ the speech of one who loves man, and set it before those who have intelligence, which all ought to have who are privileged to observe the administration of theuniverse, so that they should worship unchangeably Him who knows all things. --Justin Martyr , On the Sole Government of God Chapter 1

"This is stated by Justin, one of our distinguished writers who lived not long after the time of the apostles. Concerning him I shall speak in the proper place. Take and read the work of this man, who in the first Apology which he addressed to Antonine  in behalf of our religion  writes as follows..."--Eusebius Church History Book I chapter 13

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 201   Newer› Newest»