I think the most embarrassing strawman of Protestantism is how it sees the Catholic view of Justification. In the Protestant's mind, the Catholic position entails a person starting off a little bit righteous, then has to work his way up to fully righteous. It's as if the Catholic had to fill up a gas tank, with the tank starting off at 1% full, and with each good work they increase the tank by 1%, until they get to the end of their life and the tank is 100% full. With this view in mind, the Protestant thinks the Catholic is never actually Justified in this life. As such, this "Catholic Gospel" hardly sounds like good news at all, and in fact is (understandably) seen as quite troubling. But this is a complete misunderstanding of the Catholic view, and if you can point this strawman out to Protestants it will completely pull the rug from under them.
The actual Catholic view is that a Catholic is instantly 100% Justified the moment they convert. This then means that works have nothing to do with a Catholic getting Justified. So it is a complete strawman for the Protestant to say the Catholic view of Justification is a "process" while in 'contrast' the Protestant claims to stand firm on "the finished work of Christ". In the Catholic view, the moment one is baptized (usually as an infant, who obviously doesn't do any work at all), through the merits of Jesus, the individual is instantly 100% forgiven of their sins and instantly becomes an Adopted Child of God. Period. There's no "work" to be done. There isn't really such a thing as "initial justification," so such language should be avoided by all sides, since Baptism is not the start of some progressive life-long filling up of a 'righteousness gas tank'.
What role do works play in the Catholic view? Positively, good works increase your capacity to hold God's infused love, as if a 100% full 8 ounce cup of water increased to a 100% full 10 ounce cup of water. At all times, the Catholic is 100% Justified, with the only distinction being that they can hold more within them. This is how the love between a husband and wife is supposed to be. They love each other 100% the day they get married, but they can also grow in the 'depth of their love' for one another. Negatively, when a Catholic commits grave sin, they lose the infused love and they become 0% Justified. They don't drop down to 75% or 50% or 25% Justified. Rather, by mortal sin they aren't Justified at all. But even here, works do not get them re-justified, but rather by being truly sorry and repenting in the Sacrament of Confession, they instantly become 100% Justified again. There is no 'process'.
With this in mind, the Protestant's hands are tied, because all their 'objections' become moot. How can they charge the Catholic view of "works"? They cannot. How can they charge the Catholic view of "process" such that the Catholic is never truly Justified? They cannot. The Protestant mind wants it to be "Protestants are fully Justified at the moment of Conversion" while holding that "Catholics are never actually Justified" - but this is complete caricature and we should be quick to point it out, as it is very effective in shutting Protestant's down in the apologetics realm.
26 comments:
Hi Nick,
Good post. The following you wrote is very helpful for those who remain confused on the doctrine of justification as taught by the official sources of Catholic dogma (i.e. the councils and creeds):
==The actual Catholic view is that a Catholic is instantly 100% Justified the moment they convert. This then means that works have nothing to do with a Catholic getting Justified. So it is a complete strawman for the Protestant to say the Catholic view of Justification is a "process" while in 'contrast' the Protestant claims to stand firm on "the finished work of Christ". In the Catholic view, the moment one is baptized (usually as an infant, who obviously doesn't do any work at all), through the merits of Jesus, the individual is instantly 100% forgiven of their sins and instantly becomes an Adopted Child of God. Period==
Interestingly enough, Charles Hodge, no friend of the Catholic Church, affirmed that Trent, "retain[ed] saving truth", and that, "the decisions of the Council of Trent, as understood by one class of Romish theologians, are not less at variance with the truth".
[See THIS THREAD for full context.]
In the end, the attempts by anti-Catholic apologists to portray official Catholic dogma on justification/salvation as "semi-Pelagian" and/or as a denial of "the gospel" are baseless.
Grace and peace,
David
I have had them argue that the act of going to Confession constitutes a "work of men" by which we seek to save ourselves. It makes no sense, of course. Having to go to Confession for absolution no more makes it un-free than having to walk into a restaurant for a free drink.
Hello David, I will take a look at your link. For some reason, I did not get an email update of new comments on this post.
Hi Nick,
I am not getting email updates for new comments either; I suspect that it is a Blogger glitch. What I do to compensate is check "Comments" each day to see if anything new has been posted.
Grace and peace,
David
this brings to mind the phrase, justified "through the faith" or "through the faith of Jesus Christ".
it isn't that just faith or belief alone who one is justified, but through "the faith" which involves the religion and Church of Christ which offers salvation through the sacraments instituted by Christ.
so to be saved by baptism is to be saved through the faith. likewise, saved in confession, through the faith. or given eternal life through Holy Communion, through the faith.
whose faith? yours?
no. the faith of Jesus Christ.
His religion. His Church.
Duane
Can you please describe how man “increases” (Trent’s word) in justification if he’s already 100% justified?
Thank you.
The simplest example is to look at how we can GROW in love for another person. You can be 100% in love with your wife on your wedding day, but every couple with a strong marriage will tell you they actually love their spouse MORE AND MORE as the years go by.
Even if an athlete is the fastest runner in the world, he can still become a better runner and break his old world record. His capacity of being the best still increased.
The Bible is very clear that some people have "more" faith and/or "more" love than others. This is because not everyone is at the same capacity, some are more spiritually advanced than others, and some have been given a greater measure of spiritual gifts (according to what the Holy Spirit wants a person to have).
“The simplest example is to look at how we can GROW in love for another person. You can be 100% in love with your wife on your wedding day, but every couple with a strong marriage will tell you they actually love their spouse MORE AND MORE as the years go by.”
Thank you Nick. That was incredibly, and now-obviously helpful!
Nick,
A good article, I only find one fault:
the Council of Trent itself used language of "initial justification", if I'm not mistaken. I like your point that the believer is already 100% justified upon conversion, something very true, but that doesn't diminish the fact you also stated, that they grow and make progress FROM THAT 100% STARTING POINT.
Thomas Aquinas says there's no limit to the charity to which man can ascend in this life, insofar as divine charity is a participation in the Holy Ghost who is infinite and limitless. So possession of God's inner-Trinitarian life is our justification, and we can progressively grow in our experience in it and fidelity to it.
pax
Cornelius Augustine AKA John Church
Nick,
You said justification is not a process. However, according to Joseph Pohle, author or the section on Sanctifying Grace that justification is a process. Here is what he wrote:
“Every adult soul stained either with original sin or with actual mortal sin (children are of course excepted) must, in order to arrive at the state of justification, pass through a short or long process of justification, which may be likened to the gradual development of the child in its mother's womb.”
Also, you said that good works does not increase justification but one of the feature of sanctifying grace is ‘Inequality’. As per RC theology, sanctifying grace is the formal cause of justification and it can be increased by good works. Again Pohle explains:
‘But if on the other hand, according to the teaching of the Church, we are justified by the justice and merits of Christ in such fashion that this becomes formally our own justice and holiness, then there must result an inequality of grace in individuals, and for two reasons: first, because according to the generosity of God or the receptive condition of the soul an unequal amount of grace is infused; then, also, because the grace originally received can be increased by the performance of good works (Trent, Sess. VI, cap. vii, can. xxiv).’
Further, you said that RCs should avoid using the term initial justification yet Pohle explained that these are theological terms rightly used by RC theologians. Again Pohle:
‘The increase of grace is by theologians justly called a second justification (justificatio secunda), as distinct from the first justification (justificatio prima) [...]’
You said that Protestants understood that a RC is not justified because in RC Theology, justification is a process. This is wrong and the strawman that should be dealt with. We know how RCs are justified in their theological framework. We know it that in this life, RC justification means gaining and losing and gaining and losing justification until death. This is because one of the feature of santifying grace is ‘Amissibility’. Given that there is no strict list of mortal sins, there are times when a person do not know that he already lost sanctifying grace. And therefore, one of the features of sanctifying grace is ‘Uncertainty’.
Sincerely,
JH
Hi Nick,
I actually like the term "initial justification" because it draws a distinction with final justification ( which is based entirely on works of love
).
Initial justification is when we are born from above to the family of God, when the love of God is poured forth into our hearts, and we are given a new heart by which we can keep the Law. It is when we become partakers of the Divine Nature, sons and therefore heirs. What baffles me is how Protestants think we need more. How can someone indwelt by the Spirit,( and therefore the other two Persons of the Trinity ), not go to heaven?
Joey,
The first point you made, quoting the Pohle article, is misleading and inaccurate. The point Pohle is making is that there can be things prior to the person getting justified, such as having the right beliefs prior to baptism. Pohle was not saying that Justification starts off at 1% and has to be worked up to 100%. Pohle agrees with me.
Your second point claimed that I was advocating that good works do NOT increase justification. You completely misunderstood me. I explicitly affirmed that a person can become more righteous in the sense that a person can increase their capacity to love. Two people can be both 100% righteous, but one of them can be holding more because they have the capacity to hold more. I gave the analogy of an 8oz cup of water and a 10oz cup of water, both 100% full of water, but one holding more water.
Your third point was regarding the validity of the language "initial justification". I am saying the term is unhelpful when talking to Protestants because it gives them the wrong impression. There are times/places/groups when certain terminology can be unhelpful. Your whole response is testimony to what my original post is about.
Your final paragraph is a mischaracterization/spin of the Catholic position. I have come across many Protestant sources/people who have espoused the Strawman my OP is intended to refute. I think even you might espouse the Strawman, just in a more crafty way.
In this life, Justification is lost by mortal sin. There's nothing extreme or scandalous about this, as even the Lutherans affirm this a few times in the Book of Concord (see a prior post I did). It is what happened to David in Romans 4:7-8. A person only loses sanctifying grace if they have sufficient knowledge and sufficient consent to the grave act. That's not walking blindly as you seem to suggest.
Lastly, the Calvinist position is the most disingenuous of all the positions out there, because the Calvinist position acts as if their own Election can be Infallibly known, when in reality it is pure presumption. The many conservative, orthodox, knowledgeable Calvinists who have become Catholic in recent years is a huge testimony against the idea that a Calvinist knows for sure they are Elect/Regenerate. Even John Calvin taught there was Evanescent Grace where God could make a person think they were elect when then really weren't. I personally was strongly considering Calvinism years ago, until I stopped to realize I could never know if I was actually elect. No amount of deeds, beliefs, etc, could ever testify that I was Elect because I knew I could be self-deceived and just going through the motions. Even you must admit that about your own Election as a Calvinist, but you cannot afford to. Instead, you must reject God's Sovereignty and place your human will at the center, because the heart of you being Calvinist is the notion "God would never send me to hell, I'm definitely Elect!". That's just dangerous thinking.
The moment a Protestant accurately characterizes the Catholic position, namely 100% Justified at the moment of Baptism/Confession, then the whole Protestant charge of "Catholics believe in salvation by works" charge falls flat.
Nick,
No protestant believes what you attribute to them. It is that kind of prsentation that is a strawman. Protestant understand justication as Pohle explains it. It is a process. Such that it is gained and lost. And it is gained only when several conditions are met. It is lost when one commits a mortal sin. The problem is, mortal sin is something subjective. There is no list and therefore one can be in a state of mortal sin without knowing it. As per Pohle, conditions to be justified can be fulfilled in a short or longer period. Once received, justification can be increased as it is based on cooperation of man. The increase in justification can speed up the beatific vision, as venial sins though not removing sanctifying grace, needs atonement in the sufferings of purgatory. If you can show me one reformation theologian who explained Trent’s view as you do, then that is an area of discussion. Otherwise, you are the one making the strawman.
I will not talk about your understanding of election as that is another topic. The misunderstanding is huge. For example, it is logically false that just because there are Calvinist who becomes Mormons, RC or even leaves the faith, that the assurance taught in Scripture does not exist. And it is also false that assurance is based on presumption and not by examination based on Scriptural prescriptions.
You can say I have mischaracterised the RC position on justification but on which part?
Last post Nick in this thread. Btw, I don’t want you to become Calvinist. Just be a Christian. Pray for your Pope and the state of your church that lost is credibility right now.
Thanks,
JH
Joey,
You said "No protestant believes what you attribute to them."
Here's what CARM says: "in Roman Catholicism, attaining salvation and being justified (being right in God’s eyes) is not an instantaneous event received by faith. It is a long process."
https://carm.org/catholic-salvation-attain
JustForCatholics says:
"Catholic theology insists that the Christian's good works are truly his good merits, and by these works, he preserves and increases the initial righteousness received in baptism to finally attain eternal life (canons 24 and 32). Without doubt, the official documents of the Roman Catholic Church teach justification by works."
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a14.htm
GOT QUESTIONS says:
"The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that a person must believe in Jesus Christ AND be baptized AND receive the Eucharist along with the other sacraments AND obey the decrees of the Roman Catholic Church AND perform meritorious works AND not die with any mortal sins AND etc., etc., etc."
https://www.gotquestions.org/catholicism.html
Dallas Theological Seminary:
"Protestants often express the idea that salvation is by faith alone, through grace alone, in Christ alone. This assertion views justification as specific point upon which God declares that you are righteous—a point where you enter into the Christian life. In contrast, the Roman Catholic Church views justification as a process, dependent on the grace you receive by participating in the Church—which is seen as a repository of saving grace. Dr. Svigel explains the Catholic perspective: Grace is treated almost as if it’s a substance, something that can be dispensed through various avenues of change and means… You’re saved by grace, but how you receive that grace and what that grace does and whether it’s a one-time entrance into the Christian life or if it’s a constant movement toward salvation — that’s really the big difference between Protestantism and the Roman Catholic Church."
https://voice.dts.edu/article/7-key-differences-between-protestant-and-catholic-doctrine-del-rosario-mikel/
Zondervan:
"In short, responding to the question “Why are people accepted by God?” Catholics respond that “Grace infused through the sacraments enables them to do good works and become righteous in God’s sight."
https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/how-do-catholics-and-protestants-disagree-over-salvation-justification/
John Gerstner:
"Faith + Works --> Justification
The great and crucial difference came in answer to the question, “How is the sinner justified by Christ?” Romanism said, “By our works which flow from faith in Christ."
https://www.ligonier.org/blog/roman-catholicism/
All these articles and more testify to the prevalent Strawman within the conservative, mainstream Protestant mind. The whole charge of "works" is that justification is never actually attained at one moment in time, only a partial justification.
Part 1 of 2
continued:
You said: "Protestant understand justication as Pohle explains it. It is a process. Such that it is gained and lost."
A "process" is not something "gained and lost". You are misusing the term 'process'. A gift freely received at one moment in time and is later thrown away is not a 'process'. It's a forfeiture. Even Lutherans recognize this, and accept that salvation can be lost, and they are said to hold to Sola Fide.
You said: "And it is gained only when several conditions are met."
You need to be more specific here. What are
these "several conditions" that need to be met? What are all these conditions that a baptized infant has met?
You said: "It is lost when one commits a mortal sin. The problem is, mortal sin is something subjective."
The problem with mortal sin is not that it is "subjective". It is only subjective in a gravely sinful act can be mitigated by certain factors, such as telling a major lie under severe duress. The act is still gravely sinful, and thus *should* be repented of, but that in no way really affects the situation under discussion. A person should be regularly examining themselves so that they can recognize and change any bad habits or sinful lifestyles they might be sliding into. That is not earning nor working your way up to "fully justified", it is simply being vigilant so as not to lose the full justification you have.
You said: "The increase in justification can speed up the beatific vision, as venial sins though not removing sanctifying grace, needs atonement in the sufferings of purgatory."
What does "speed up the beatific vision" even mean? What is being "sped up"? And you bringing up venial sins actually confirms my point, namely that venial sin does not cause the loss of justification. The VERY DISTINCTION between mortal and venial sin exposes the Protestant strawman because it shows the sanctifying grace by it's very presence makes a person 100% justified is not lost with every kind of sin.
You said: "If you can show me one reformation theologian who explained Trent’s view as you do, then that is an area of discussion."
This question first requires that YOU hold to the same definition of Justification as the Reformation Theologians. See, the thing is, you and all post-Reformation theologians teach that the Reformers got Justification WRONG. Luther and Calvin did NOT hold to Christ's Active Obedience. Calvin makes it very clear that Justification is ONLY the remission of sins. In Calvin's RESPONSE TO TRENT he says:
////////// And yet it is not us that these Tridentine Fathers anathematize so much as Paul, to whom we owe the definition that the righteousness of man consists in the forgiveness of sins. The words are in the fourth chapter to the Romans, “David speaketh of the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven.” (Psalm 32:1) We see that in Paul’s view blessedness and righteousness mean the same thing. And where does he place both but solely in the remission of sins? His meaning is the same as in the fifth chapter of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing unto men their trespasses.”////////////
YOU reject this. Calvin points to Romans 4:6 and 2 Cor 5:21 and says these refer to FORGIVENESS ALONE. This is far closer to the Catholic position than the Confessional Reformed view. This is an excellent testimony of how Perspicuity is rejected by the Reformed. Calvin had no notion of the later Reformed notion of "Imputed Righteousness of Christ" as conceived as Active Obedience Imputed to us.
Calvin also says of Catholics: //////////In the person of Abraham the chief mirror of justification is held forth. Let us see, then, at what time faith is declared to have been imputed to him for righteousness. (Genesis 15:6; Galatians 3:6.) He was certainly not a novice, but having left his country, had for several years followed the Lord, so that he was no common exemplar of holiness and all virtue. Faith therefore does not open up an access to him to righteousness, in order that his justification may afterwards be completed elsewhere. And Paul at length concludes that we stand in the grace which we have obtained by faith. (Romans 5:2.) As far as a fixed and immovable station is from a transient passage, so far are they in this dogma of theirs from the meaning of Paul. To collect all the passages of Scripture were tedious and superfluous. From these few, I presume, it is already super-abundantly clear, that the completion, not less than the commencement of justification, must be ascribed to faith.///////////
Here Calvin is trying to construe the Catholic position as if it taught Justification was not an instantaneous act, but that it was incomplete, partial, etc, and needed to be worked up to.
As for Assurance, we can talk about that later, but I do not think you can give me even a brief, objective reason why you know you're one of the Elect.
Hi Nick,
Read each one of the quotes and even read the context of it in the original website. Each of them conveys the RC position correctly. The process they are referring to either refers to the amissibility of justification or the process of slavation (more specifically how one gets to the beatific vision). Others merely refer to the conditions that has to be met for justification by baptism or by penance. Clearly, none of these sources state justification the way you do.
In terms of conditions that has to be met, see Pohle again:
‘We now come to the different states in the process of justification. The Council of Trent assigns the first and most important place to faith, which is styled "the beginning, foundation and root of all justification" (Trent, l.c., cap.viii).’
Under this condition, Pohle explains:
‘In how many truths as a means (necessitate medii) must one believe to be saved? many catechists answer Six things: God's existence; an eternal reward; the Trinity; the Incarnation; the immortality of the soul; the necessity of Grace. But according to St. Paul (Hebrews 11:6) we can only be certain of the necessity of the first two dogmas, while the belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation could not of course be exacted from ante-Christian Judaism or from Paganism. Then, too, belief in the Trinity may be implicitly included in the dogma of God's existence, and belief in the Incarnation in the dogma of the Divine providence, just as the immortality of the soul is implicitly included in the dogma of an eternal reward. However, there arises for any one baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, and entering thus the Church of Christ, the necessity of making an act of explicit faith (fides explicita). This necessity (necessitas medii) arises per accidens, and is suspended only by a Divine dispensation in cases of extreme necessity, where such an act of faith is either physically or morally impossible, as in the case of pagans or those dying in a state of unconsciousness. For further matter on this point see Pohle, "Lehrbuch der Dogmatik", 4th ed., II, 488 sqq. (Paderborn, 1909).’
The second condition for justification, as per Pohle:
‘The next step is a genuine sorrow for all sin with the resolution to begin a new life by receiving holy baptism and by observing the commandments of God. The process of justification is then brought to a close by the baptism of water, inasmuch as by the grace of this sacrament the catechumen is freed from sin (original and personal) and its punishments, and is made a child of God. The same process of justification is repeated in those who by mortal sin have lost their baptismal innocence; with this modification, however, that the Sacrament of Penance replaces baptism.’
Under this condition, Pohle further explains:
‘Since no metaphysical certainty can be cherished in the matter of justification in any particular case, we must content ourselves with a moral certainty, which, of course, is but warranted in the case of baptized children, and which, in the case of adults diminishes more or less, just as all the conditions of, salvation are complied with--not an easy matter to determine.’
Of course, the process of justification has been a theologically debated by traditionalist and liberals since Vatican II when it declared that there is salvation outside the church and the sacraments. Now, even a Muslim, if he did not believe the Catholic Faith and baptised can be still justified according to the light given to him. How that can be reconciled with the previous dogmatic statement is another topic.
(To be continued...)
(Continuation...)
With regard to Calvin and Active Righteousness, hope you read the entire document you quoted. In the same document (Antidote), you will read Calvin stating these:
‘The whole dispute is as to The Cause of Justification. The Fathers of Trent pretend that it is twofold, as if we were justified partly by forgiveness of sins and partly by spiritual regeneration; or, to express their view in other words, as if our righteousness were composed partly of imputation, partly of quality. I maintain that it is one, and simple, and is wholly included in the gratuitous acceptance of God. I besides hold that it is without us, because we are righteous in Christ only. Let them produce evidence from Scripture, if they have any, to convince us of their doctrine. I, while I have the whole Scripture supporting me, will now be satisfied with this one reason, viz., that when mention is made of the righteousness of works, the law and the gospel place it in the perfect obedience of the law; and as that nowhere appears, they leave us no alternative but to flee to Christ alone, that we may be regarded as righteous in him, not being so in ourselves.’
Calvin viewed Trents model as two tier. One composing of forgiveness and the other ‘quality’. That quality he will layer explain as habitual righteousness. He disagrees with Trent. He said both forgiveness and righteousness are found in Christ. He argues that the law and the gospels place justification in the ‘perfect obedience of the law’ but since no one did so, our only recourse to find that ‘quality’ is in Christ (external to us).’
Sometimes we have to take into consideration the context and read the whole document to avoid strawman such as what you have demonstrated here. But please do not take this an insult to your intellect. I know you are intelligent but, probably, you are just so pre-occupied in finding fault with anythkng Reformed that you hear less and less of what they are actually saying.
God bless on your studies. Hope you will have an open mind in these things. Last post for me here!
JH
I think Pohle seals my claim with the very words you quote: "The process of justification is then brought to a close by the baptism of water"
The only sense in which "process" is used here refers to the preliminary items prior to baptism, most importantly the adult has to believe Jesus is the Son of God, that the Cross was for the forgiveness of sins, etc. This is basic Christian truths that are taught throughout Acts. The Reformed are somewhat disingenuous in this regard, because they say Repentance isn't directly part of getting Justified, and that Regeneration happens prior to faith, and that a person must affirm certain truths by which to make the act of faith.
As for Calvin, he is repeatedly explicit, and at the *heart* of his dispute against Trent was that he refused to admit Justification was anything more than the legal forgiveness of sins. Calvin in no way affirmed a Passive and Active obedience in the later Reformed sense. Forgieness of sins alone. He explicitly says "alone" with forgiveness multiple times. Nowhere is an Active Obedience affirmed. The notion of needing to stand before God as if you have perfectly kept the law is a later Reformed invention. There's a reason why folks like you do not interact with the exegesis I give repeatedly of texts like Romans 4:5-8 and 2 Corinthians 5:21. My conscience is clear on the Word of God.
Hi Nick, thank you for this! I'm a Reformed Protestant struggling with understanding the Catholic doctrine of justification. I've been born and raised in the Reformed Baptist tradition, specifically, but as I've read the Apostolic Fathers I've found them to be most inhospitable to Baptist doctrine!
Would you be able to recommend a book at an academic level discussing the Catholic doctrine of justification?
Hi Jacob,
Sorry for the delay in responding. I'm not sure what book to recommend for the Catholic view of Justification since I've found many of them to fall short in certain aspects. For example, I've found some of them to be too philosophical,too dense, too long, etc, to be helpful. Not that they are bad, but I think when discussing the issue with Protestants the Catholic needs to be relatively brief and needs to really emphasize Paul, especially Romans, and how we use the same language very differently. Too often, Catholic treatments on Justification basically ignore the very passages that Protestants need us to cover, namely Romans 3-5, Eph 2, 2 Cor 5:21, etc. And these need to be covered in such a way that Catholics don't beat around the bush, heavily qualify, etc.
That's why for this blog (not to brag), I make it a point to take these passages head on, where I show they plainly teach Catholicism and blatantly refute Protestantism. There's a reason why Protestants wont touch most of these posts, at least not honestly. I talk about Romans 4, about what the Bible really says about being "clothed with Christ", what it says about Imputation, the Atonement, etc. Most Catholic resources do not emphasize the exegetical aspect nor do they tie in things like the divergent views of the Cross.
I think the best 'academic' treatment I've seen is John Henry Newman's "Lecture Series" where he talks a lot about Justification, but it is quite long/dense, and he doesn't cover the exegetical aspect as I think is helpful for Protestant readers.
I welcome any questions you have, including via email.
Hi Nick,
I preface by sharing that while a Protestant, I do not share its orthodox view of justification. Now, I only know how to reference Hebrew and Greek by Strong's numbers and with that, examined all occurrences of Strong's 6662-6666 for Hebrew words and 1341-1347 for Greek words. If one looks at their pronunciation, one can tell they are forms of the same word (like walk, walking, walked, etc.).
Anyway, from looking at the original, it is clear that just is synonymous with right or righteous, justify with to make right, etc. Thus, the Protestant view of justification ranks with the largest amount of eisegesis (adding to meaning) I have ever come across.
I believe to be justified is to be made right or to show to be right, the latter explaining how God, who always has been right can be justified (Romans 3:4).
So I cannot possibly accept the orthodox Protestant view.
But, I have a serious problem with the Catholic view which is that being righteous is the same as having God's law written in the heart and so a justified person (a person made righteous) no longer sins.
How is it possible, according to the Catholic view, that a person who has been made righteous can sin?
Thanks in advance and blessings,
Tony
Hi Tony,
You are correct about the Protestant approach to Biblical terms. They are notorious (especially their scholars) from hiding the Bible from the laity, particularly only showing them parts of the Bible while hiding other parts and especially key words. I have written before how the Biblical term "righteousness" does *not* mean living a life of sinless obedience. That's a tradition of men which Protestant scholars invented to prop up their mistaken view of Justification.
The teaching that the law of God is written upon the Christian heart is plainly taught in Scripture various places. But it doesn't mean a Christian can no longer sin. Rather, it means they are able to follow God's commandments more intuitively, without a rigid/literal approach to morals. For example, Jesus spoke about how the Law said "do not commit adultery," which on the rigid reading led some to think the only thing condemned was physical adultery. Jesus clarified that you can commit 'adultery in your heart' by lusting after someone.
To be righteous does not mean you can no longer sin. It means that as you currently are, you are living in general conformity to God's law, as an adopted Child of God. The OT is very clear that God does not get upset or punish for every sin or mistake someone makes, but rather only for major sins and especially communal sins.
Even the Psalms say "The righteous man sins seven times a day". This isn't to say sin is good, only that even the righteous man is still a fallen/weak man and makes mistakes throughout the day. But as long as these aren't grave sins, he remains righteous.
Hi Nick,
I thought to also enter my email here thinking it might facilitate more dialogue (read: others as well). As you know, it was primarily in response to your email where you wrote:
"I don't know anywhere where the Catholic view says we can no longer sin. Righteousness does not mean being without sin, at least small sins, it means you're overall conformed to God's standards. Only grave sin causes you to cease to be righteous. "
Oh, and just to let you know, got to go to work soon.
My email:
Hi Nick,
Just to let you know, I am in the place where I am somewhat certain of the view I hold. That in itself is a tough one to flesh out. For example, I really like the 1 Corinthians verse (I think it is 8:2) where it says "If any man thinks he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know."
In spite of being pretty sure at a high level, I sure hope to have a teachable spirit.
I have spent a lot of time studying this matter and a lot seems to fit with the understanding I have.
All that being said, I think you mistranslated my email to you. I never wrote that Catholics believe they can no longer sin (or no longer sin), I asked how it is, according to the Catholic view, if one actually is righteous, he can sin.
Now here I must contrast Adam with someone (hypothetically) made righteous. Adam had a level of innocence we lack. To me, he is much like the proverbial kid whose mom implores not to touch the hot stove. Adam knew nothing of the actual pain inherent in a sinful mentality, much less the degree God would go to remedy the problem, should it occur. We lack much of the innocence Adam had. I say this because I believe Adam was righteous all the while he was susceptible to sinning.
Anyway...
Isaiah 51:7
7 "Listen to Me, you who know righteousness, A people in whose heart is My law;
Elsewhere, sin is defined as the transgression of the law.
So if to be righteous is to have the law in the heart and sin is the transgression of the law, it seems to me the law cannot be transgressed which then means one no longer sins if one is made righteous.
That is why I asked how it is with the Catholic view one can sin if one has been made righteous (justified).
One of the chief things I have come to believe is that Sarah (wife of Abraham) is a type of the faithful (as is Abraham as well).
(Oops, this is too long. I need to break it up.)
Tony
Continuing on...
One of the chief things I have come to believe is that Sarah (wife of Abraham) is a type of the faithful (as is Abraham as well).
Now, I did a fairly thorough study of "travail as of a woman in birth pangs." A birth pang represents the chastening that accompanies character purification. The Bible seems to couch such an experience in apocalyptic lines. Read: this is a one time, last day occurrence.
Does a people really have such an experience? Chastening that is unrelenting until a final birth pang occurs, in which case one has given birth (is born again)?
1 John 3:9; 5:18
9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin because he has been born of God.
18 We know that whoever has been born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him.
Romans 8:19-22
19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.
I think Romans is foretelling a last day event where all experience birth pangs as character is disclosed. The faithful are purified through the experience while the unfaithful cannot endure such disclosure.
Note that 1 John twice says that he who is born again (and thus had all birth pangs and thus been purified completely) cannot sin.
Back to Sarah. She never could give birth, but she does so in her old age.
The faithful from Adam and Eve after the fall up to just before the end of time cannot give birth, but then does so at the end of time.
It seems to me that in the attempt to come to terms with what justification is, orthodox Protestantism and Catholicism alike have suffered a colossal impediment crucial to understanding the subject.
Each cannot and will not believe Sarah will give birth.
Protestantism proceeded to misconstrue what justification is - to be made righteous.
Catholicism proceeded to not know what being righteous looks like - these folks perfectly reflect the character of their Savior and do not sin.
Blessings,
Tony
Post a Comment