The ins and outs of Biblical Justification

There is a common claim by Protestants arguing that Justification is strictly a "forensic" matter whereby all the saving actions taking place during Justification occurs entirely external to us. Protestants make this bold claim in order to undermine the Catholic claim that Justification consists primarily in an inward transformation within your soul. A good way for Catholics to refute the Protestant claim is to show how often the Bible speaks of both internal and external language within the same verse. I made a post about this several years ago (HERE), where I cited multiple passages in Scripture which mentioned God performing both external and internal changes on us when we get saved. This dual aspect view is sometimes called the "duplex" view, which even the Council of Trent permitted when it decreed: 

If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice [righteousness] of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favor of God; let him be anathema. 
(Trent, Session 6, Canon 11)

Notice that Trent is not excluding that there is an external component to justification, and it could even be termed "imputation" in some sense (some definitions of "imputation" are okay, while other definitions are problematic). The catch is that the external cannot be seen as the "sole" factor going on, especially to the more central "grace and charity poured into their hearts by the Holy Ghost" (Rom 5:5). Along with the original duplex texts I presented or were in the large comment box (Acts 15:9,11; Acts 26:18; 1 Cor 6:9-11; Eph 2:5-8; Philip 3:9-11; Col 2:11-14; 2 Thess: 2:13; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet 2:24; 1 Jn 1:9), for this post I would like to add a few more duplex verses which I think will be helpful. 

Reading Romans 9 with 70AD in mind - Revisting Abraham's faith reckoned as righteousness (part 7)

I have recently been pondering Romans 9 with the backdrop of 70AD in mind, and a lot of what follows ties into the Revisiting Abraham's faith reckoned as righteousness series (here). If Paul has the destruction of the Temple and destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD in mind - which signifies God formally rejecting the Jews as His chosen/elect people - then that would explain a lot of the pain and concern Paul has in this and the following chapters. The standard "Calvinist" reading of Romans 9 is that of emphasizing God's sovereignty in choosing, but I think that misses the point and takes a too shallow of reading of Paul here. Romans is not concerned about defending God being all powerful, but rather about explaining why God would elect someone just to reject them later on. Consider that 75% of the Bible is focused on God electing the Israelites as His "chosen" people (Deut 7:6), only to suddenly do a reversal in the "last days". God graciously gave the Israelites divine gifts of adoption, covenants, glory, promises, etc (9:1-5), most of which was unmerited by them. Nobody denies that God could have made you born a different race, in a different time, under different circumstances, etc, so it is kind of pointless for Paul to make "unconditional sovereignty" the issue. Similarly, I don't think Paul is suggesting God chooses for purely hidden reasons, but rather that God chooses for very strategic reasons. In fact, I have come to see the "thesis" verse of Romans 9 to be in verse 8, where Paul says, "those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as the seed," which I believe means those who are born of purely natural or biological means are secondary to those who are born of special or supernatural means. With this in mind, let's take a look at Paul's actual examples. 

First, Paul brings up Isaac versus Ismael. We know that Ishmael was firstborn and born by natural human relations, but God had Isaac in mind as the blessed chosen linage which would bring about the "Seed" or Messiah. Paul emphasizes this same lesson especially in Galatians 4:21-31, so it would be reasonable to see the same lesson elsewhere in Paul's writings. I believe this is also taught in Romans 4:1-4, where Paul begins by asking about Abraham being father "according to the flesh" (4:1b), and "justified by works, but not before God" (4:2), because Ishmael was born "according to the flesh" (i.e. Abraham's sleeping with Hagar), making it seem like Abraham had achieved by human means the promised heir of Genesis 15:5-6. This producing of Ishmael was thus a "justification by works" in the sight of men (4:2a), because in the human calculation they reckoned Ishmael to be the promised seed heir...but not in the sight of God (4:2b), since God had in mind Isaac instead to be the promised heir or at least chosen lineage. Thus, Paul gives a human analogy, whereby when a person works a job he is rightly entitled a wage (4:4a), but how much more blessed is it to receive a gift beyond what your job can get you? Abraham could produce a natural heir (working wages), but trusting in God and receive a supernatural blessing, such as Isaac coming from a barren Sarah, that's beyond natural or normal transactions (4:4b). Similarly, the Mosaic Covenant promised health and wealth for faithfulness to it, but these were earthly wages, whereby being a Believer in the higher things of life comes with the promise of forgiveness of sins and heaven. Thus, Paul is trying to condition us to start thinking in a spiritual way rather than the long time "fleshy" way of earthly blessings. 

Second, this sets up Paul for a second example, noting the first few words he uses: 

10 And not only this, but also when Rebecca had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

Does "Evening then Morning" mean one day? (Seventh Day Adventists)

Genesis 1 contains the language of "evening came, then the morning" for each of the Six Days of Creation. This Biblical language of putting the "evening" first then "morning" second has lead the Jewish custom to count all of our days as starting/ending at sunset. So when they get ready for the Sabbath on Saturday, this means the Sabbath/Saturday actually begins at sunset on Friday afternoon. Though I had not thought about it, I had always assumed this to be what Genesis 1 meant because so many people had said this is what "evening then morning" meant. While that is a possible meaning, I came across someone claiming that "evening then morning" just refers to the night time, and that Genesis 1 was actually saying a day beings in the morning. This will be a short post discussing this possibility. 

The best place to begin is by looking at how Genesis 1 uses the "evening then morning" language, which I will briefly show here:

The Bible easily refutes the Lutheran & Reformed view of Original Sin

Sorry for the delay in posting, my life has been so busy that I've not had any chance to post, and when I sit down to post I run into all kinds of unfortunate distractions that leave many things as an unpublished "draft". That said, I have been occasionally active on Twitter (HERE), and have met some great Catholic and Protestant people on there, with some good topics that have been discussed. For this post I want to discuss a fundamental and serious error that I saw a Lutheran espousing about Original Sin, which is a major reason why they espouse Imputed Justification against Catholicism (and Scripture). I see it as a simple and short refutation of their erroneous view of Original Sin.

The Protestant Reformers erroneously saw the "evil desires" that remain within the Christian as truly and properly sinful before God. As one Lutheran put it on Twitter: "Man's fallen and wicked desire, Concupiscence, is itself actually sinful, for it is lawless and rebellion against God's law and holy will." This sinful desire, called "Concupiscence," is a major point of contention between Catholics and Protestants. If such desires as the temptation to lust after a woman, which are constantly arising within us, are truly sinful, then the Christian is in a serious bind, for how can they hope to live a life of holiness before God if they are constantly hit with lustful desires throughout their Christian life? The Protestant view is that these lustful desire are truly sinful, and thus the only way to "escape" this constant feeling of defeat and guilt before God is to "hide" behind Christ's Righteousness through Imputation, such that God now only sees Christ's holy life instead of you whenever God looks at you. It would seem that some kind of Imputation model would be the only "solution," even though this doesn't really amount to a solution when other factors are considered. Meanwhile, the Catholic view is that Concupiscence is not sinful in itself, but rather is an inclination to give into sin, and thus Concupiscence is only a temptation in the Catholic view, whereas sin is an act of the human will to choose to give into temptation. In short, for Catholicism and Scripture, we would say concupiscence is not sinful in itself but it certainly is a result of Original Sin and an unfortunate effect that remains even in Christians.

One primary Catholic proof text that concupiscence is not formally/truly sinful comes from the Epistle of James, chapter 1, which says:

12 Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial [temptation], for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire ["concupiscence" in Latin]. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

What James is saying is that there is a distinction between temptation/concupiscence versus that of sinning. Merely being tempted or feeling lustful desires is not sinful, but it is an effect of Original Sin. This passage would not even make sense if temptation itself was formally (i.e. truly) sinful rather than an effect of Adam's sin. In fact, this passage would seemingly undermine the Protestant view quite plainly, and I think it does. But to turn up the heat against the erroneous Protestant view, I pointed the Lutheran to many passages from the First Epistle of St John, which I will now cite here, and which he didn't seem to have any response to.

Consider these passages from First John:

Why Mormonism shouldn't be tolerated in America

This post is related to my post Why Mormonism shouldn't be tolerated in Utah (HERE), but now I'm expanding it to the whole American continent. If you've read the Utah post linked above, we can use that same principle to see what is fundamentally wrong with the Mormon mindset when it comes to Salvation History. That's what we will cover in this post.

One cornerstone of the Mormon religion is that a small group of Israelites back at the time of the Books of Kings were told by God to leave Jerusalem before the Babylonian exile and have this small group of Israelites sail on a ship to arrive somewhere near Mexico. Here's what the LDS "Guide to the Scriptures" (HERE) says about the prophet Lehi:

In the Book of Mormon, a Hebrew prophet [Lehi] who led his family and followers from Jerusalem to a promised land in the western hemisphere about 600 B.C. Lehi was the first prophet among his people in the Book of Mormon. Lehi fled Jerusalem with his family at the command of the Lord (1 Ne. 2:1–4). He was a descendant of Joseph, who was sold into Egypt (1 Ne. 5:14). The Lord gave him a vision of the tree of life (1 Ne. 8:2–35). Lehi and his sons built a boat and sailed to the western hemisphere (1 Ne. 17–18). He and his descendants became established in a new land (1 Ne. 18:23–25).

Recall that the ancient Israelite mindset was such that there is only one Promise Land, which was promised to Abraham originally, and which Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt to attain it, where the Twelve Tribes would finally settle down, where David's throne was established and the Temple was built. The land of Israel was the only Promise Land they ever envisioned. Now notice from the above quote how this is framed, Lehi "fled" Jerusalem due to the incoming Babylonian exile and was sent to establish himself and his descendants in "a" new Promise Land. This is the Mormon view and it fits perfectly with the American pioneer-fronteer mindset, but it is flatly against the Biblical theme of having one home and being temporarily removed from it due to punishment. So the accepted Mormon notion of just leaving Jerusalem to come to America for good, with no intention to return, runs completely contrary to the Biblical narrative. 

Moreover, the Israelites were in a covenant with God to keep the Mosaic Law, which means Lehi and his descendants would be required to keep the Mosaic Law. But how do you keep the Mosaic Law when you're nowhere near Jerusalem, without the Levitical Priesthood, no Temple, etc? How do you celebrate the Jewish holy days? You can't, which again runs completely against the grain of Scripture but which Mormon/Protestant views of Scripture completely miss.

Equally problematic is the Biblical theme wherein the "Ten Lost Tribes" were originally chastised for separating from Judah's authority, yet somehow Lehi separating from Judah's authority (even establishing a kingdom in America) is suddenly a good thing? And from an Old Testament prophetic perspective, you are being sent into exile for sin on a national level, even if you're relatively innocent as an individual like Daniel, and yet Lehi is instead told to "flee" instead of getting chastised with the rest of the Israelites? Or what about the great theme of "Returning Home" after the Babylonian Exile, how does that fit with a narrative where you just leave with no intention or yearning for home? Again, this Mormon-Protestant mindset is completely inconsistent with the Biblical narrative.

I understand that what I'm saying above will fall on deaf ears for many Mormons, because they either don't get it or have cognitive dissonance, but to those of us who have eyes to see, the Mormon narrative is plainly an American pioneer/pilgrim mindset, which is completely at odds with the Biblical narrative of the Israelite history. Realizing this debunks Mormonism on a "meta-narrative" level, which is essential to better direct your apologetics energy with Mormons, rather than the typical approach which implicitly concedes their foundational (erroneous) presuppositions.