justification

[Paphnutius]

Just so it does not sink into the abyss that can be the bottom of a phorum.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Theoketos' post='950349' date='Apr 16 2006, 11:42 PM']
N.T. Wright has a book called "What St. Paul Really Said" I endorse everything in the book minus one chapter...

Basically We are saved a Church, through Grace by Faith.
[/quote]

Im impressed, quoting a reformed scholar. NT Wright is a stud,we read that book in class. Ironically it was as a critique for his view of romans mostly, but the justification part was great.


[quote name='Brother Adam' post='952895' date='Apr 18 2006, 06:03 PM']
I don't think the instant microwavable theology American Protestant theology is ultimately going to 'cut it'.
[/quote]

only calvinistic protestant denoms have this issue, most evangelicals dont. They believe in a similar "process" or "transformation" that we do

[journeyman]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='952405' date='Apr 18 2006, 12:14 PM']
<snip>

As it is, you are essentially saying that being forgiven does not [b][color="#CC9933"]earn [/color][/b]heaven. You have to do good works to [b][color="#CC9933"]earn [/color][/b]justification, while maybe not technically the forgiveness of sins. The good news of the gosple is that we are forgiven if we believe. You have found a way to bypass forgiveness, such that one still has to [b][color="#CC9933"]earn [/color][/b]heaven (and I might argue forgivenness of sins despite what you say), and are essentially destroying what is good about the good news.

<snip>
[/quote]


I'm not sure I'm following what the issue is between the two of you . . . but is the use of the word "earn" appropriate here?

[jesussaves]

Frankly, I don't know if one will continue to sin in heaven or if the person will simply be prevented from sinning or if it's where sinners lose that part of themself that could be good.

The bible does say we must be perfect to enter into heaven. This I believe is through a legal degree. That's the good news of the gosple. You don't have to be perfect inwardly or no one could enter heaven. You distort the biblical idea of forgiveness and the implied guarantee of heaven. You see that you can't require works to allow us to be forgiven, so you find another way to distort the good news by saying that forgiveness is not enough, that "justification" requires sanctification to be complete.

Sanctification is required, but we are not expected to be perfect inherently.

[Brother Adam]

It is fascinating to watch you try to 'figure out' the Bible on your own, becoming your own Magisterium, falling regularly into old errors and heresies. That there will be sin before the Beautific Vision is as absurd as the Calvinistic notion of denying free will. It makes me even more secure that the Catholic Church is the one truth Church.

"Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect." The strive for holiness is part of justification because the Bible tells us so. We are still 'running the race," "trembling" while we work out our salvation. The sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary affords one the oppertunity of being born again, returning to God, and taking care of the eternal problem of sin - death, through rebirth being united to Christ's death and resurrection and being born again. The temporal problem of sin is still with us today, but as you identified there will be no sin in heaven. Santification is united to justification for just this reason. Like the angels the oppertunity to choose God or not God in heaven will have past and we will experience true freedom perfectly united to His will. The legal sense of salvation is not the only, nor even most important part of soteriology to understand, but rather the covenantal sense. To forget that is to leave the Bible behind.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='947144' date='Apr 14 2006, 09:42 AM']
Christians still reject your notion that you can go to hell for a single mortal sin that you're living in or that God will judge you for where you happen to be when you die. It's all about the direction of your life, not a technicality if you happen to have a mortal or grave if you will sin.
[/quote]
This is called the fundamental option theory and is a relatively new position in ethical philosophy. It is also wholly inconsistent. Being in the state of mortal sin is not a technicality. Being in the state of mortal sin is the result of a conscious decision to reject God, incarnated in a particular act during one's lifetime.

This is from a paper I wrote on Veritatis Splendor, one of Pope John Paul II's encyclicals. All references are to that work:

According to some theological theorists, the moral life is centered around the fundamental option either to follow God or to reject Him (65). While the moral life is undoubtedly an invitation to a radical movement toward God, it cannot be taken to the extent which these theories attempt to take it. Indeed, the Gospels do call many times for those who wish to be with God to give up everything for the sake of the Gospel (66). This call "can be described as involving a fundamental option" (66).
However, in submitting to the theory that the fundamental option is all that matters, the faithful would be enslaving themselves to evil acts while (allegedly) retaining their fundamentally moral and God-centered stance (66). This is because the fundamental option theory creates a dualism between faith and life, between the fundamental choice of a person for or against God and the person's actions. In this dualism, "a distinction thus comes to be introduced between the fundamental option and deliberate choices of a concrete kind of behavior" (65). While the fundamental option may be involved in the moral life, as Jesus calls the faithful into such radical choices, it cannot be said that the faithful could believe one thing and do another, as is often the case with the fundamental option theory, which "is pushed to the point where a concrete kind of behavior, even on freely chosen, comes to be considered as a merely physical process, and not according to the criteria proper to a human act" (65).
Because these moral theories set up a rather hypocritical dualism, they are contrary to the faith and to Catholic moral tradition. This is because the Catholic moral tradition views "the fundamental option as a genuine choice of freedom and links that choice profoundly to particular acts" (67). The faith is such that, once radically chosen, it must be lived. The dualism was pointed out in Veritatis Splendor: it contradicts "the substantial integrity of personal unity of the moral agent in his body and in his soul" (67). In other words, this dualism is wholly inconsistent with the Catholic faith because it states that the soul may do one thing and the body another, entirely contrary, thing. Nor can the soul simply have a good intention and allow the body to use whatever means it sees appropriate to achieve its goal (67).
If the particular act is not in accord with the fundamental option, then it is, quite simply, a refutation of the fundamental option and a withdrawal from the moral life. It is not only by withdrawing the fundamental option in the soul, but also by "every freely committed mortal sin [that] he offends God as the giver of the law and as a result becomes guilty with regard to the entire law; even if he perseveres in faith (that is, sticks to the fundamental option), he loses "sanctifying grace," "charity," and "eternal happiness" (68). Although one may say that he wishes to remain with God, that he is fundamentally turned to God, if his actions contradict that to the extent of mortal sin, then he is wrong and in grave danger of losing his immortal soul. This is most certainly different from the fundamental option theory, which allows a person to do whatever he wishes in practice while "believing" another thing or being "fundamentally" turned toward God.

[jesussaves]

If this fundamental option bit were true, I would insist that it'd apply to even the smaller sins, as you are not pursuing God fully.

It is true that some sins are more serious than other sins. But this notion of being able to draw a line in the sand between smaller and larger sins, where the larger sins can cancel out everything is arbitary and not part of the gosple.

[jasJis]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='959613' date='Apr 24 2006, 07:35 PM']
If this fundamental option bit were true, I would insist that it'd apply to even the smaller sins, as you are not pursuing God fully.

It is true that some sins are more serious than other sins. But this notion of being able to draw a line in the sand between smaller and larger sins, where the larger sins can cancel out everything is arbitary and not part of the gosple.
[/quote]Then how do you explain Paul's admonition to the Galatians?

"I say, then: live by the Spirit and you will certainly not gratify the desire of the flesh. For the flesh has desires against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; these are opposed to each other, so that you may not do what you want. But if you are guided by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. [b]I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."[/b]

[Brother Adam]

Or rather, it isn't immediately obvious to your own worldview. If the Bible says very specifically that some sins are mortal and others are not mortal, than there is indeed a line to be drawn, one which the Church has always understood and always taught. Unless of course you propose that the Apostles, their successors, the early Church, and all Christians got it wrong for over 1600 years. Feel free to prove it. I believe ironmonks offer of something like $10,000 and his truck still stands.

[Paphnutius]

I first apologize for my tardiness in posting. My internet provider has been a bit haywire the past four days and so I was forced to wait.

[quote]Frankly, I don't know if one will continue to sin in heaven or if the person will simply be prevented from sinning or if it's where sinners lose that part of themself that could be good.[/quote]This is where it is sad. I do not mean this as an insult, but this shows just how shallow non-Catholic theology can be. We do not sin in heaven because our wills will so totally turned and united with God. We will see God face to face and love Him so fully that we will never turn to sin again. It is not that we are prevented from sinning from some other source (this would deny free will which is a part of being human) and it is not that we will loose our free will (unless you meant that some other part is responsible for sin), it is that we will see the Beatific Vision and wish to never turn from it. Heaven is like a constant affirmation of our love for God.

[quote]The bible does say we must be perfect to enter into heaven. This I believe is through a legal degree. That's the good news of the gosple. [/quote]Please point me to where it says, "Although you are really filthy with sin, I will simply call you clean and let you in. I will not grant you the grace to be truely clean, but simply call you clean."

[quote]You don't have to be perfect inwardly or no one could enter heaven.[/quote]No? Where does it say that? I thought it said that you had to be perfect, not called or decreed perfect.

[quote] You distort the biblical idea of forgiveness and the implied guarantee of heaven. [/quote]Would you like to discuss once saved always saved? How do we distort the idea of forgiveness?

[quote]You see that you can't require works to allow us to be forgiven, so you find another way to distort the good news by saying that forgiveness is not enough, that "justification" requires sanctification to be complete.
[/quote]You do understand that they said forgiveness is not enough without Grace correct? They were saying that one must accept Grace. Furthermore, please answer this question, "Would you agree that one must cooperate with grace and the process? " Also, just incased if you missed it, I posted this above to clarify what was stated: "The Church was stating that it was wrong to say that only the forgiveness is necessary without grace or renewal of the inner man (charity). It does not down play forgiveness, but rather states that grace and renewal are both necessary for Justification."

So are you stating that grace is not necessary for salvation? If you are not then you agree with the Church. Do you say that one must not be renewed or turned again towards God for salvationn? If not, then you agree with the Church.

[quote]Sanctification is required, but we are not expected to be perfect inherently.[/quote]Then what is the point of Sanctification? "Being made holy or perfect is required, but we are not expected to attain it." That is just what you said here. Something is required but there is not way that it can be attained? Your position is inconsitent in the fact that you recongize we must be perfect to enter into heaven, but then in the same breath deny that it actually happens.

[jesussaves]

[quote]Please point me to where it says, "Although you are really filthy with sin, I will simply call you clean and let you in. I will not grant you the grace to be truely clean, but simply call you clean."[/quote]

Though your sins be like dung, they are as white as snow. That's from the bible.

[quote]You do understand that they said forgiveness is not enough without Grace correct? They were saying that one must accept Grace. Furthermore, please answer this question, "Would you agree that one must cooperate with grace and the process? " Also, just incased if you missed it, I posted this above to clarify what was stated: "The Church was stating that it was wrong to say that only the forgiveness is necessary without grace or renewal of the inner man (charity). It does not down play forgiveness, but rather states that grace and renewal are both necessary for Justification." [/quote]

One must cooperate with grace generally speaking.

[quote]So are you stating that grace is not necessary for salvation? If you are not then you agree with the Church. Do you say that one must not be renewed or turned again towards God for salvationn? If not, then you agree with the Church. [/quote]


As I said before.
[quote]
I believe that if you are forgiven, you are going to heaven. I agree that works are necessary and that it is wrong to forget about sanctification but

I disagree that works are part of justification, if you believe this sort of justification to be necessary for heaven. If you think the works are part of justification in that to truly be "justified" in a more general sense, which includes a sense that does not exclude heaven, then I agree with you, [/quote]

Works are necessary. I do not think they should be part of justification. But let's not argue terminology if we do agree with the same concepts. We both agree works are necessary. Faith is necessary. I suppose the only part where we disagree is that perfection is necessary.

[quote]Then what is the point of Sanctification? "Being made holy or perfect is required, but we are not expected to attain it." That is just what you said here. Something is required but there is not way that it can be attained? Your position is inconsitent in the fact that you recongize we must be perfect to enter into heaven, but then in the same breath deny that it actually happens.[/quote]

Sanctification means to me simply increasing in holiness. It's a general disposition. It's not being made perfect inherently.



So on a tangently related note, is there an official stance on whether or not someone can die in a mortal sin, but that person would have eventually repented and God knows that, so that person is not necessarily damned? I haven't ruled out the idea that people who commit grave sins will one day repent, but I do not see it fitting for God to beaver dam someone who happens to be in grave sin if they are generally improving and have faith.

[jasJis]

jesussaves,
It's not Catholic Theology that's shallow, it's people's understanding of it or ability to explain. Catholic Theology is not shallow, it's just often ignored.

[jasJis]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='961963' date='Apr 26 2006, 01:26 PM']
So on a tangently related note, is there an official stance on whether or not someone can die in a mortal sin, but that person would have eventually repented and God knows that, so that person is not necessarily damned? I haven't ruled out the idea that people who commit grave sins will one day repent, but I do not see it fitting for God to beaver dam someone who happens to be in grave sin if they are generally improving and have faith.[/quote]The answer is not neccesarily. First off, God judges perfectly if one has committed a mortal sin. Only God knows and understands how much of our conscience will intended to do the grave sin which makes it mortal. If the person's heart started to regret the sin, God alone will judge if the person responded adequately to Grace or not. To fully respond to Grace, a Catholic knows he can turn to the Sacrament of Confession/Reconcilliation to be assured of Grace. A Catholic publically confesses his sin to a priest, the priest will provide counsel and let the Catholic know that God's grace has forgiven him. Priests do not forgive, God does. The priest only serves as a channel of God's grace. God doesn't need confession, but He established it so we can hear and know the words 'You Are Forgiven' are true and effective. Plus the Catholic has the added bonus of getting some counsel to improve their works tha participate with grace. It's very Biblical. Re-read the Pentecost story.

[jesussaves]

Are you a protestant telling me this? I ask because of your signature
and label. I ask wondering why you defend the Catholic Church?

But thanks for the reply. That seems like a reasonable stance and Catholicesque. It's definitely food for thought. Now I need to consider the hypothetical of whether a person can have a single sin and have it firm, with faith, and not be damned.

[jasJis]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='961980' date='Apr 26 2006, 01:48 PM']
Are you a protestant telling me this? I ask because of your signature
and label. I ask wondering why you defend the Catholic Church?

But thanks for the reply. That seems like a reasonable stance and Catholicesque. It's definitely food for thought. Now I need to consider the hypothetical of whether a person can have a single sin and have it firm, with faith, and not be damned.
[/quote]Whether you're a Baptist, a Pentecostal, or a Catholic, wouldn't you defend and admit the truth that Jesus is the Son of God? I'm just defending what's True. Christians share more Truth than they are willing to admit.

I don't understand your hypothetical question.