Help with an answer - ASAP before Saturday

[thessalonian]

Here is my question:

>I asked this from my home email over the weekend. Still waiting for
> an answer.
>
> Let me ask it a different way. Todd Friel spends a Wednesday
> evangelizing by a bus stop. A young man who has led a terribly sinful
> life get's the law and the Gospel right between the eyes and like the
> Jews in Acts 2:38 he is "cut to the heart". The process of
> sanctification has BEGUN but has a long way to go. If that girl calls
> him that he has been having sex with he is so weak he will fall. He
> gets on the bus. Next to him is Billy Graham. He has resisted sin,
> run the race, is highly sanctified. You said, none of us are
> completely sanctified/perfected in this life but this is as close as
> it gets. The bus gets in to a head on collision with a semi truck. Both are killed.
> Does God just forget about the sanctification that was necessary in
> the new converts life? What about all those trials and struggles that Mr.
> Graham went through for his sanctification? The young man still has
> thoughts of lust while Mr. Graham thinks only of his wife and his love
> for her. Will the young man go in to heaven with his thoughts of lust?
>
>

Here is this radio pastor's answer:

Thanks for the question, I'll try to bring it up on an upcoming show. Its hard for me to answer all the emails I get, so don't be offended if I don't answer each time you write, hopefully I'll hit it on an upcoming program. Briefly, I think the only thing that saves us is our justification through Christ (His substitutionary death). This justification is then followed by our up and down walk in sanctification, but if we are at a down moment in that sanctification at the moment of our death, the death of Christ is sufficient for the forgiveness of our sins. I don't see the Bible teaching a purgatory where we go through sufferings to pay for my sins or to be purified from our sins, since this has already been done once for all for us when Jesus said "It is finished."


My initial thoughts are first of all, in the context of his justification, i.e. sins forgiven, that is not what purgatory is about. Purgatory isn't about forgiveness of sin. Isn't sanctification about purification? That it seems to me is what purgatory is about. If he cannot see in the Bible that God purifies us AFTER we are forgiven, then he is contradicting himself. If it has already been done once then why isn't it done once in life? What's the point of sanctification in life? Further, a few weeks ago I talked about this other guy on the same station who contrasted imputed (Protestant) vs. infused (Catholic) righteousness. It seems like this is a big problem for them in that if there is no infused righteousness at this moment of being saved (which is what he said) then all sanctification has to occur afterward. If it doesn't happen after the end of life something's gotta give.

Also, if he can't find in the Bible suffereing for our sins after they are forgiven then he's got a different Bible. 1 Cor 3:15 is of course being ignored.

Blessings

Edited November 9, 2005 by thessalonian

[thessalonian]

Also, it almost seems like he is preaching sanctificatin by works. From what phat said to me in my related thread, we believe sanctification is by the sacraments, i.e. baptism, confession, eucharist. It seems that for them sanctification would be by works alone. Am I missing something?

[phatcatholic]

its hard to say whether he is preaching "sanctification by works" or not. this part of his response needs more clarification:[list]This justification is then followed by our up and down walk in sanctification, but if we are at a down moment in that sanctification at the moment of our death, the death of Christ is sufficient for the forgiveness of our sins.
[/list]everything else you said is correct. just b/c the new convert is forgiven, that does not negate the need for a final purging. so, you're pretty much on track, just make sure you don't assume anything about what he believes until he expresses it more explicitly.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Jake Huether]

It seems that he is making it a much less complex issue than it really is, to be quite honest.

There are a few things that certainly need to be clarified on his part.

Is the forgivness of sins Justification of Sanctification - acording to him.

Because he seems to equate Christs death only with Justification. Then we make the walk in Sanctification - therefore seperating Justification and Sanctification. Or does he believe that initial Justification includes Sanctification (in part or in full), and then we continue to be Sanctified - but not Justified - through our walk..??

If the forgiveness of sins is Justification (i.e. Christ's death) in his opinion, then Sanctification is the purging of the effects of sins. This seems to fit what he's saying. And it fits fairly okay with Catholic theology (although Justification for us includes Sanctification - so it isn't just the forgiveness of sins)...

But then all of a sudden at the end, he says that Sanctification isn't necessary at all, because if we die in a "down moment", Christ's death Justifies us. In other words, Christ's death forgives our sins. But this doesn't speak to the question at hand... If we aren't Sanctified at the end of our life, we need not only to be Justified, but Sanctified as well.

We're back at the original question then... what happened to sanctification!?

He starts out by saying one thing: That Christ's death Justifies us (which may or may not include in part or in full Sanctification), which is followed by Sanctification during our walk....

Then he makes the statement that if we are at a down moment in our walk, Christ's death is sufficient for the forgiveness of our sins...

So he seems to be saying that initially the totality of the merits of Christ's death aren't applied to us, in that we have to make the walk in Sanctification... but that only if at the end of our life we haven't walked far enough in Sanctification, then and only then does Christ's death become sufficient (for both Justification and Sanctification - although he only mentions forgiveness of sins - and not the purging of the effects of them).

And to further confuse us, at the end he states that he can't find in the bible the need to suffer or be disciplined for our sins, since Christ's death did it. Yet he just said that Christ's death forgives sins (Justification)... He said nothing of Christ's death paying for the discipline associated with sin (Sanctification)...

He says that Christ's death forgives our sins (which it does). He says that Christ's death Justifies us (which it does). He says that we must walk in some such Sanctification process (which we need to)...

I can dig all of this...

Then He says that If we aren't Sanctified at the end of this process (our walk), Christ's death Justifies us.

Well... does or doesn't Justification include Sanctification... If it includes it, why does he believe we need to continue to walk in Sanctification... If it is because later we sin and we need to make up (in the Body of Christ) what is lacking in Christ's suffering (like St. Paul)... Then he is spot on! This is what Catholics believe, and it lends itself perfectly to the need for Purgatory at the end.

Yet then he goes and says that if we don't complete this sanctification, it's okay since Christ's death was sufficient... But then if it was sufficient [b]in this way[/b] such as to remove the punishment for sins we make after Baptism, why on earth would we even need to make a walk in Sanctification at all!?

Further...

Where is Baptism in all of this?

Because the application of the totallity of God's forgiveness and the price paid for the punishment of our sins (both temporal and eternal) in Christ's death through the waters of Baptism bring us a new life in Christ.

If this person had not been baptised, it is quite true to say that he may have recieved a Baptism by desire at the instance of death. Therefore, since he has been re-born in Christ, there would have been total forgiveness of sin and the removal of all punishment for sin. In this case, he would be better off than Billy Graham, who at Baptism may have had a clean slate in Christ, yet during his new life may have sinned, requiring again, this time through the Body of Christ on earth in the Sacraments, forgiveness in Confession as well as such suffering / punishment / discipline as needed to purge the effects of the sin from him either in this world or the next.

I think, therefore, you should ask him what his definition of Justification is and whether or not it initially includes Sanctification and to what extent.

Then he needs to clarify why he believes that we must walk in Sanctification, yet if we don't walk far enough by the end of our life, Christ's death makes it up... If Christ's death is sufficient, why would he not apply the totality of it right up front? If it is applied, in this manner, all up front, why the need to walk in Sanctification at all?


God bless!

[thessalonian]

Jake,

Good observations. Those were some of the issues with his email that I wrestled with. It is very confusing. We go through sanctification, but in the end it doesn't really matter and do anything with us it seems But then it seems also as though he has confused it with justification.

[thessalonian]

I worked up a response. Comments welcome.


Tom,

Thanks for your reply. I am sure you are getting a lot of emails. I was just proding you to up the priority on mine.

I have to say that I find your email very confusing. Perhaps because there is a difference between what you and I consider to be sanctification and justification. Would I be correct in saying that your definition of justification is that he took away punishment for sin? And is sanctification for you, the removal of the tendancies toward sin? I.e. the Alcoholic no longer wants a drink, the sex addict remains pure? When you say "but if we are at a down moment in that sanctification at the moment of our death, the death of Christ is sufficient for the forgiveness of our sins." what does that mean. It almost seems like you are going back to sanctification or mixing the two here. I would expect that our sins were forgiven when we asked for forgiveness. In some sense justified because God no longer holds them against us. Todd would say that the moment you become a Christian this happens for all past, present, AND FUTURE sins. This is in my understanding an "imputed" righteousness. Sanctification it seems is to bring us to an infused righteousness. Ie. We are purfied and perfect, because all must be perfect in heaven. Purgatory is not about justification within the framework of how I have presented it here (though not completely consistent with the Catholic understanding of justification/sanctification, I am trying to mold what I say to your understanding of the terms, likely failing). But it seems that you go back to justification in your quote above to answer my question and almost deny the need for sanctification. Purgatory in the framework here is about sanctification. The sins have been forgiven, but the soul still needs cleansing. One cannot really separate this from a punishment for the sin. The alcoholic, before he started drinking heavily did not have an inordinant desire for binge drinking. This came about because of the sin of binge drinking and was increased, weakening his will to resist. Now when he repents he is "justified" and the sin is "forgotten" by God. But if all punishement were gone as well, i.e. temporal, not eternal punishment which is gone, then he would no longer desire a drink, which is now a torment for him. A trial he must overcome. It must be sanctified out of him. Once again I ask, if this is not complete at the end of life then what gives? The man that Todd just converted next to Billy Graham on the bus is still weak toward sex, drugs, and still has a habbit of using the Lord's name in vain. He can't go to heaven with G-D on his lips. For nothing unclean shall enter. With qualifications which I won't make at this time I would agree that he goes to heaven, but how can he go straight to heaven.


"I don't see the Bible teaching a purgatory where we go through sufferings to pay for my sins or to be purified from our sins, since this has already been done once for all for us when Jesus said "It is finished." "

If you ignore 1 Cor 3:15, then you might say this. It has to apply.

[14] If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.
[15] If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

The man is saved, i.e. justified. His sins are forgiven. That is the state that we Catholics see the man in purgatory in. But he was not completely obedient to Christ and so sinned. Now back to our friend on the bus next to Billy Graham who was obedient as any man it would seem. The "justified" new Christian according to this passage has to suffer loss. If not in this life IT MUST happen before entry in to heaven. You can't just say, Jesus forgets about it when he dies because the cross takes care of it. Why doesn't the cross take care of it in this life (actually according to Catholic theology it does, somewhat indirectly because grace is not a one time thing)? The lost must be suffered.

There is punishment for sin, I would hope you will agree, regardless of justification.

Heb 12
[6] For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves,
and chastises every son whom he receives."
[7] It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline?
[8] If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.
[9] Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live?
[10] For they disciplined us for a short time at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness.
[11] For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.
[12]
Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees,


[13] and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed.
[14] Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.
[15] See to it that no one fail to obtain the grace of God; that no "root of bitterness" spring up and cause trouble, and by it the many become defiled;
[16] that no one be immoral or irreligious like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal.


The context seems to be chastisement of the saved sinner.
Now back to our friend on the bus. If the Lord loves him he must go through some trial due to his sin according to this passage. What happens if he does not go through it before he dies? Once again, it would seem that you say the lord just forgets about it because he is justified. That just doesn't seem to make much sense in light of this passage and others if you want me to provide more evidence that there is still temporal punishment for sin.

I would also like to discuss what is sanctification and how it happens, because it almost seems as if you are advocating sanctification by works. This would be contrary to Catholicism. Perhaps I can write you on it at a later date.

Thanks again

I will try to listen on Saturday

Gerald

Edited November 10, 2005 by thessalonian

[thessalonian]

A little rework:


Tom,

Thanks for your reply. I am sure you are getting a lot of emails. I was just proding you to up the priority on mine.

I have to say that I find your email very confusing. Perhaps because there is a difference between what you and I consider to be sanctification and justification. Would I be correct in saying that your definition of justification is that he took away eternal, though not all, punishment for sin? Would you say "all punishment"? And is sanctification for you, the removal of the tendancies toward sin? I.e. the Alcoholic no longer wants a drink, the sex addict remains pure? When you say "but if we are at a down moment in that sanctification at the moment of our death, the death of Christ is sufficient for the forgiveness of our sins." what does that mean. Does it mean that God forgets about the chastizing he would have done had you lived. (see hebrews passage below)? It almost seems like you are going back to sanctification or mixing the two here. I would expect that our sins were forgiven when we asked for forgiveness. In some sense justified because God no longer holds them against us. Todd would say that the moment you become a Christian this happens for all past, present, AND FUTURE sins. This is in my understanding an "imputed" righteousness. Sanctification it seems is to bring us to an infused righteousness you might say. Ie. We are purfied and then perfected (sanctified), because all must be perfect in heaven.

Purgatory is not about justification within the framework of how I have presented it here (though not completely consistent with the Catholic understanding of justification/sanctification, I am trying to mold what I say to your understanding of the terms, likely failing). But it seems that you go back to justification in your quote above to answer my question and almost deny the need for sanctification. Purgatory in the framework here is about sanctification. The sins have been forgiven, but the soul still needs cleansing. One cannot really separate this from a punishment for the sin. The alcoholic, before he started drinking heavily did not have an inordinant desire for binge drinking. This came about because of the sin of binge drinking and was increased, weakening his will to resist. Now when he repents he is "justified" and the sin is "forgotten" by God. But if all punishement were gone as well, i.e. temporal, not eternal punishment which is gone, then he would no longer desire a drink, which is now a torment for him. If his wife left him she may well not return to him and he may suffer lonliness. His children may still not accept him for quite some time. A trial he must overcome. His continued desire for alcohol and a possible fall or two or 10 must be sanctified out of him. Once again I ask, if this is not complete at the end of life then what gives? The man that Todd just converted next to Billy Graham on the bus is still weak toward sex, drugs, and still has a habbit of using the Lord's name in vain. He can't go to heaven with G-D on his lips. For nothing unclean shall enter. With qualifications which I won't make at this time I would agree that he goes to heaven, but how can he go straight to heaven.


"I don't see the Bible teaching a purgatory where we go through sufferings to pay for my sins or to be purified from our sins, since this has already been done once for all for us when Jesus said "It is finished." "

What is finished? His sacntification isn't? How does it get finished?
If you ignore 1 Cor 3:15, then you might say this. It has to apply.

[14] If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.
[15] If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

The man is saved, i.e. justified. His sins are forgiven. That is the state that we Catholics see the man in purgatory in. But he was not completely obedient to Christ and so sinned. Now back to our friend on the bus next to Billy Graham who was obedient as any man it would seem. The "justified" new Christian according to this passage has to suffer loss. If not in this life IT MUST happen before entry in to heaven. You can't just say, Jesus forgets about it when he dies because the cross takes care of it. Why doesn't the cross take care of it in this life (actually according to Catholic theology it does, somewhat indirectly because grace is not a one time thing)? The lost must be suffered.

There is punishment for sin, I would hope you will agree, regardless of justification.

Heb 12
[6] For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves,
and chastises every son whom he receives."
[7] It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline?
[8] If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.
[9] Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live?
[10] For they disciplined us for a short time at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness.
[11] For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.
[12]
Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees,


[13] and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed.
[14] Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.
[15] See to it that no one fail to obtain the grace of God; that no "root of bitterness" spring up and cause trouble, and by it the many become defiled;
[16] that no one be immoral or irreligious like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal.


Now back to our friend on the bus. If the Lord loves him he must go through some trial due to his sin according to this passage. What happens if he does not go through it before he dies? Once again, it would seem that you say the lord just forgets about it because he is justified. That just doesn't seem to make much sense in light of this passage and others if you want me to provide more evidence that there is still temporal punishment for sin.

I would also like to discuss what is sanctification and how it happens, because it almost seems as if you are advocating sanctification by works. This would be contrary to Catholicism. Perhaps I can write you on it at a later date.

Thanks again

I will try to listen on Saturday

[thessalonian]

Well, he brought up my initial email in his heresy update on the radio, presented a distorted view of what I said, brought up some straw man arguements about purgatory and then bowled them over with arguements about the theif on the cross and the stewards in the field who came later and got the same wage. Never addressings imputed righteousness and the need for sanctification therafter that he himself admited happened. Why bother with these people. They are so blind. I would like to call it stupid but many of them seem intelligent enough. Anyway, I wrote him an email that lambasted what he did. I won't post it as it was written a bit in anger, though I will say I don't think I was out of line with what I said.

[Jake Huether]

The thief on the cross falls under the catagory of Baptism by desire. And Catholics believe that upon Baptism one is totally conformed to Christ, dying with Him to be Raised with Him. Therefore he would have had all sin forgiven (Justification) and all punishment for sin removed (Sanctification).

The workers recieved the same wage at the end of the day...

But we aren't told anything about how hard they worked... if they worked all day trying to get the job before being hired. We don't know how much they did after they got hired. We only know they got the same wage.

And they could have gotten the same wage by virtue of their baptism, similar to the theif on the cross.

Those who persevere in virue and purity after Baptism have no debt to pay, no discipline to undergo!

And of course he totally ignores...

Jeremiah 25:14
They themselves will be enslaved by many nations and great kings; [b]I will repay them according to their deeds[/b] and the work of their hands."

1Cor. 3
8The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and [b]each will be rewarded according to his own labor[/b].


Rev. 2
23 Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, [b]and I will repay each of you according to your deeds[/b].

The Bible cannot contradict itself.

I hope that you are able to write him again. And I pray for the sake of his followers that he corrects himself on air.

God bless.

Edited November 14, 2005 by Jake Huether

[thessalonian]

Thanks for your input. He doesn't seem to read my emails in any depth. It seems to me that he is ignoring alot and just proof texting. His passages don't work with regard to scripture. He assumes imputed righteousness is the cause of their salvation. But the Bible says we must have clean hearts, infused righteousness.


Matt.23
[25] "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of extortion and rapacity.
[26] You blind Pharisee! first cleanse the inside of the cup and of the plate, that the outside also may be clean.

Luke.11
[39] And the Lord said to him, "Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of extortion and wickedness.

You don't think we can go to heaven with the cup cleaned on the outside do you? Do you think this passage is just about cups?



Ps.24
3] Who shall ascend the hill of the LORD?
And who shall stand in his holy place?
[4] He who has clean hands and a pure heart,
who does not lift up his soul to what is false,
and does not swear deceitfully.

Ps.51
[10] Create in me a clean heart, O God,
and put a new and right spirit within me.

Heb.10
[22] let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
Jas.4
[8] Draw near to God and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you men of double mind.

Blessings
_________________
"

[phatcatholic]

thess.................check out the articles in this entry:
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/143"]http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/143[/url]

[thessalonian]

thx phat. I will. They look great. I picked a fight with some fundies at www.christianforums.net as well.

I find this issue of imputed righteousness to be a big foopaw for them. It just seems to increase the need for purgatory to me over the Catholic theology of infused righteousness. But they must deny that as well.

Edited November 14, 2005 by thessalonian

[phatcatholic]

haha, troublemaker

[thessalonian]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Nov 15 2005, 12:12 AM']haha, troublemaker
[right][snapback]789341[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Who me?