Clarification On Christian Fundamentals

[jesussaves]

After I posted that yesterday, I asked a friend what he thought. He said you can't be more of something like justification. Either you are, or you are not. He used the analogy that you can't be sort of married; either you are or you are not. I'm not sure the analogy follows, and you do provide an important note in that question. What are your thought on his analogy?

[Katholikos]

The obvioius problem, of course, is who gets to decide what is fundamental and what is not in the Christian religion?

Without an ultimate authority, no agreement can be reached by all Christians.

Ay, there's the rub.

Praise Him and exalt Him forever in His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the final and only authority in Christianity.

Christ didn't leave us a Bible, He left us a Church. The Church wrote the NT and produced the Bible.

-----------------------------------------------------
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='1100805' date='Oct 25 2006, 12:23 PM']
After I posted that yesterday, I asked a friend what he thought. He said you can't be more of something like justification. Either you are, or you are not. He used the analogy that you can't be sort of married; either you are or you are not. I'm not sure the analogy follows, and you do provide an important note in that question. What are your thought on his analogy?
[/quote]
My thoughts are that the his analogy goes to the heart of the matter of how we are saved. Marriage as a contract is all at once. Marriage as a marriage, that is, a lifelong way of living life, is ever deepening. Is it the same marriage? Yes. Do you become more married or is it ever more true that you're married? No. But is marriage growing? Well, the marriage itself doesn't grow, but you grow in it. The marriage penetrates you more and more and you give yourself over to it more and more by acting out the married life in love.

This is why I use the analogy about being late to class. If you are late and have a justification for your tardiness, you are excused. Do further justifications somehow make it more true that you are excused? No, but do they make you more excused? Yes. Does your excuse get bigger and better? Yes. Does the professor see you as more justified? Yes. The problem with the non-Catholic view is that they would say the professor sees you as more sanctified and indeed, he sees you as more innocent because you have a greater excuse, but it isn't just that you are more sanctified. The professor doesn't just say, "okay, okay, you're excused, but kudos on your other excuses." The professor says, "you're excused and not only are you excused, but you are abundantly excused because with every excuse it is clear to me that you are more and more innocent." There is something intrinsically linked to justification there. It is not that you are justified and then more and more holy; it is that you are justified, conformed more and more to the image of one who is innocent, and because you are justified, you are holy, because justification and sanctification are simply two aspects of the same thing.

It really does go to the difference between how we are saved, be it by a sort of contract or by a sort of conformity to the one who was saved, Jesus Christ.

Think of it this way. Christ won objective salvation for us. We need to accept this salvation by making room in our souls for the grace that brings us salvation. Now, Christ is full of grace (of course), and so the Father looks upon Christ and says, "you, my Beloved Son, deserve and merit heaven completely." The Father then looks on me and says, "you have grace in your soul, but still so many attachments to sin, so much pride, so much anger, so much sloth...yet, you still have grace in your soul and are not in a state of mortal sin (which removes all grace), so when I see you, I see my Son in you, even if He is faint. Come, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." Now, let's say that I'm not dead yet. Naturally, God not only wants us to reach heaven, but to be the best we can be, since we are His creation. Therefore, He wants us to improve throughout life. Now, it seems clear that we must then open ourselves up for more grace, but since we are filled up with so much vice and attachment to sin, these things must be removed in order to make room for God's grace. So we have to root out the evils so that God's grace may penetrate deeper and deeper. That means a change must take place. Now, since we've established that any change requires work, my faith must work in order to dig up the roots of evil in my soul (let it be understood that all initial grace comes from God...He makes the first move, and so He digs into the soul first by gently knocking at the door and if we let Him in, then He comes and begins to dig, but He wants us to help because we have to cooperate in order to have the grace applied to us). If my faith does not work, then it cannot dig up the roots to make room for more grace. So my faith works and I root up the evils and vices and attachments I have to sin and make room for God who, out of His eternal goodness, freely gives me grace and pours it into my soul in abundance. Because I am more sanctified by grace (because it penetrates me more), I become a clearer image of His Son, so that when He looks upon me, I am all the more justified, because I am all the more His son, having grown more and more in His Son and having been conformed more and more to His Son. Greater grace is needed for sanctification, but this cannot happen unless our faith works to root out the evils and when it does happen, it is also justification because the more sanctified we are, the more justified we are.

Relating it all back to marriage, it never becomes more true that you're married, but the marriage does grow in truth and depth and beauty and become more of a marriage, wouldn't you agree?

[jesussaves]

Sure. But you do not increase in marriage; you increase in the good effects and purposes of marriage. A protestant would say you are justified, but you increase in the effects of justification, namely, sanctification.

I honestly do not know how to approach the situation. You versus my friend have good arguments.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='1100867' date='Oct 25 2006, 01:07 PM']
Sure. But you do not increase in marriage; you increase in the good effects and purposes of marriage. A protestant would say you are justified, but you increase in the effects of justification, namely, sanctification.

I honestly do not know how to approach the situation. You versus my friend have good arguments.
[/quote]For a short, really excellent book on the differences in the way Catholics and Protestants use the same language to mean different things, and for a thorough exploration of the concepts of salvation / sanctification / justification / redemption / forgiveness read Jimmy Akin's The Salvation Controversy, available at www.catholic.com. Akin is a convert to Catholicism and gives a very balanced and fair presentation of both sides of the controversy. First, you have to understand what folks mean by what they say, by the words they use.

Edited October 25, 2006 by Katholikos

[jesussaves]

Your argument: Person A lived a life more in conformity to Christ, so he is more justified than person B who did not as much. Both people are justified, but person A is more justified.

My problem: Jesus' death covered all the sins of the world. If you sin, it is covered. If it is covered, how can it become more covered? To say that someone is "more justified" means there are shades of guilt on someone who is "less justified", doesn't it?

Then again, not necessarily, as you point out, again there's the point that person A did in fact lead a life more in conformity, so he is more justified, again even though BOTH ARE JUSTIFIED.

I'm not sure which analogy fits. Obviously because an analogy is used doesn't means it follows, like the wedding one. It seems like a fundamental judgement call that I would have no idea how to make.

Edited October 25, 2006 by jesussaves

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='1100877' date='Oct 25 2006, 02:27 PM']
Your argument: Person A lived a life more in conformity to Christ, so he is more justified than person B who did not as much. Both people are justified, but person A is more justified.

My problem: Jesus' death covered all the sins of the world. If you sin, it is covered. If it is covered, how can it become more covered? To say that someone is "more justified" means there are shades of guilt on someone who is "less justified", doesn't it?

Then again, not necessarily, as you point out, again there's the point that person A did in fact lead a life more in conformity, so he is more justified, again even though BOTH ARE JUSTIFIED.

I'm not sure which analogy fits. Obviously because an analogy is used doesn't means it follows, like the wedding one. It seems like a fundamental judgement call that I would have no idea how to make.
[/quote]
Your problem reflects a difficulty posed by the distinction between objective redemption and subjective redemption. Objective redemption is that which Christ merited on the cross. Subjective redemption is that which is applied to individual souls. I addressed it above (look for my analogy with the "grace bank"). When we talk of one being more justified, it is on the subjective level, not the objective. It does not affect Christ's sacrifice, but rather affects the level to which Christ's sacrifice may be applied to individuals.

[jesussaves]

I think a fundamental question I need to ask is, according to the Catholic Church, is the person who has faith while they are alive justified?

I asked a friend what I asked you:
[quote]Myfriend said this: Person A lived a life more in conformity to Christ, so he is more justified than person B who did not as much. Both people are justified, but person A is more justified.


My problem with that is what your problem is: Jesus' death covered all the sins of the world. If you sin, it is covered. If it is covered, how can it become more covered? To say that someone is "more justified" means there are shades of guilt on someone who is "less justified", doesn't it?

Then again, not necessarily, as my friend pointed out, again there's the point that person A did in fact lead a life more in conformity, so he is more justified, again even though BOTH ARE JUSTIFIED.[/quote]

Here is what he said:

[quote]
Yes, one is forgiven more than the other. But the end result, the state of being forgiven, is exactly the same for both of them. Neither one of them had to pay a single cent. Someone who is forgiven is forgiven!

Let's do some math.
Person A has $100 debt.
Person B has $ 1000000 debt.
Person A is forgiven $100.
Person B is forgiven $ 1000000.
Who was forgiven more? Person B.
Who has more debt now, Person A or Person B?
Neither one; now they do not have ANY debt.
You are a sinner; I am a greater sinner.
Jesus forgave you your sins; he forgave mine also.
Who has more legal debt now?
Neither one, we are both completely forgiven, free, justified!
One more thing notice how your Catholic friend is basing our state of justification on how we live, our conformity with Christ. If that is so, than we are not yet justified -- for like me, you admit that we continue to sin. In that case it is not a question of being more justified or less justified, but of being more guilty and less guilty!
But the Bible says that we are justified right now. And that this state of justification is on account of the blood of Jesus.
I'm sending you some past editions of my newsletter which deal with the topic of justification. I hope you find them informative.
[/quote]

It seems you could insert "justified" for "forgiven" at least in the first paragraph of response. But the point he is making is whether the person at their conversion is justified or not. Are you forgiven and justified after you convert?
Would you respond that the person can be said to be objectively justifeid, but subjectively increasing in justifiecation? Doing what they can do not mitigate what needs to be done by Christ, so to speak?

Your thoughts?

Edited October 27, 2006 by jesussaves

[jesussaves]

Also in addition to the last post, what about the idea of what Christ's blood accomplished. Did it accomplish the possibility that we would eventually become justified by our own works, ableit graced, on earth or ultimately purgatory? Or did it accomplish more than just hte possibility, but the actual justification?

[jesussaves]

Also in addition to the last post, what about the idea of what Christ's blood accomplished. Did it accomplish the possibility that we would eventually become justified by our own works, ableit graced, on earth or ultimately purgatory? Or did it accomplish more than just hte possibility, but the actual justification?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='1102380' date='Oct 27 2006, 12:22 PM']
I think a fundamental question I need to ask is, according to the Catholic Church, is the person who has faith while they are alive justified?

It seems you could insert "justified" for "forgiven" at least in the first paragraph of response. But the point he is making is whether the person at their conversion is justified or not. Are you forgiven and justified after you convert?
Would you respond that the person can be said to be objectively justifeid, but subjectively increasing in justifiecation? Doing what they can do not mitigate what needs to be done by Christ, so to speak?

Your thoughts?
[/quote]
While the analogy with the money is interesting and certainly makes a point, I don't think it really addresses the issue I'm raising.

It is true that both persons end up with no debt, just as it is true that, in the case of getting to class late, a person with only one excuse and a person with ten excuses would both end up excused.

The problem is that it's not a matter of all the sins being covered. All sin is forgiven in Baptism (and sins committed after Baptism are forgiven in Confession, which I will gladly address in a different thread if you choose to start it) so that the sins are removed. One "mild" sinner and one "severe" sinner after Baptism would both be completely "paid up," as it were. However, the problem arises again that the Protestant mindset on salvation sees it as a contract...once the terms are met and everything is paid off, it's all set to go. It's a tempting position, but there is a principle in Catholic theology that God not only wants to save us enough to get into heaven, but to make us better and better, even better than we would have been had we never sinned. Although we may be paid up, so to speak, it is clear that a person still retains concupiscience, a certain desire to commit sin, a weakness to evil. Although they have grace in their souls and are forgiven their mortal sins, they still retain these weaknesses. These weaknesses keep them from fully reflecting Christ and from being in full conformity to Him (because, of course, He has no weaknesses). Therefore, since we accept it as a principle that the more you are conformed to Christ, the more justified you are, it naturally follows that someone who has made a faith-response to grace in such a way as to remove some of these weaknesses is more conformed to Christ than one who is "merely" in the state of grace without having removed these weaknesses (I put merely in quotes because grace in the soul is no insignificant thing, nor do I mean to give that impression). It's a matter of growing in that grace. Take, for instance, the ten men who were healed by Christ. All were healed, but who was more justified? The man who returned and thanked Christ was the one who made a response to that gift, that grace, and as such, while that healing was a gift, the thanks he gave to Christ certainly not only earned him further blessings but by thanking Christ, the man really opened himself up to the full healing. Although God may heal us and justify us, when we respond in faith to that grace, we are accepting it (thanking is a form of accepting) and allowing it to penetrate more deeply. That man not only had his sight restored, but also grew in grace by thanking God. Thus, he was more conformed to Christ than the others because he, like Christ, had both sight and thankfulness, while the others had only sight. Now, certainly this shows that one becomes more conformed to Christ, but does it show that he was more justified because he was more conformed? Let me ask you this, if you have two friends and you give them both the same gift and one uses it constantly to the point that he would wear it out if it could be worn out and the other uses it only a little, who is more deserving of that gift? Remember, they didn't earn it; it was truly a gift to you, and yet the one who really uses it deserves it more. In fact, you could even say that he owns his gift more than the other owns his because he really takes ownership of it and puts it to good use. So when God looks at two people are in the state of grace, the one who puts that grace to better use and is, consequently, more conformed to His Son, is more justified...more deserving...but that justification still depends primarily on God's gift. It is God's generosity that distributes, it is our willingness to accept God's grace that determines how it is portioned out, and it is our response to God's grace that determines how much effect it has on us, not only in getting us to heaven, but in recreating us and renewing us in the image of His Son.

Anyway, I hope that helps. I wanted to sort of shift the question a bit because I thought that this approach would cut to the heart of the matter better. The short answer is that yes, you are justified in this life if you have grace in your soul because you have the sort of "minimum" conformity with Christ, but are you as justified as you will ever be? No. We believe that we continue to grow and grow in justification. You only need a certain amount to get into heaven, but you want to grow past that. This begs the question, why do we want to do more than the minimum if the minimum gets us to heaven? Well, think of it like this: in heaven, God will pour Himself out to you in love (I assume we agree here, although it's really only an analogy). You are a vessel made to hold God's grace. As long as you hold His grace, you are justified. However, you can hold more grace, and the more room you make in yourself by uprooting evil, the more grace you can hold. Well, when you get to heaven, you will be filled with grace, undoubtedly, but during this life you can be stretched to hold more. Thus, while in any case you will be completely blessed in heaven, your capacity for blessing can increase. That and it's just a good thing to be conformed more and more to Christ (what true Christian wouldn't want to be?).

I would like to address one thing directly:

[quote]One more thing notice how your Catholic friend is basing our state of justification on how we live, our conformity with Christ.[/quote]

First, you must speak well of me for me to be called a friend. I appreciate that.

I'm not basing the state of justification on how we live (although to some extent how we live is responsible, since Baptism is part of us living and since, if we live very sinful lives, we will also lose justification), but rather I am stating the degree of justification on how we live. If one is in the state of grace, one is in the state of justification. If one has more grace, one is in a higher degree of justification. One is in the state of justification independent of degree.

[quote]Also in addition to the last post, what about the idea of what Christ's blood accomplished. Did it accomplish the possibility that we would eventually become justified by our own works, ableit graced, on earth or ultimately purgatory? Or did it accomplish more than just hte possibility, but the actual justification?[/quote]

Certainly the grace flowing from the Blood of the Lamb which was shed upon the Cross does more than just allow us to be justified by our own works. The Scriptures tell us that when we who are in a state of grace do good, it is God doing good through us. St. Paul says, indeed, that Christ lives through him. The fact is that our consent is needed for salvation (no theology can throw out that fact). The work of grace which God works in us is something we participate in by our very consent, but of course we see from the Scriptures that consent is not just a willful thought or assent, but a willful act (the son who consented to doing his father's will did not do it, but the son who did it was the truly consenting one who did his father's will). This is why we say that we cooperate with God in our salvation. God saved us. Without Him, we would be damned. Salvation is therefore a free gift, but like any gift, if it is not used, it is useless and does not accomplish its purpose. However, we cooperate with it so that we may "own" our salvation by truly making it ours, that is, by living by it. The purpose of grace is to make us worthy of heaven (God doesn't through pearls before swine; He wants to transform us to be worthy of heaven, not just give it to us who are unworthy). We are worthy of nothing if we do not take that gift and try to live it out. In order to be made worthy, we must live in grace and live out that grace in order to "exercise" our souls and make them strong, yet it is still God doing it in us, but we are cooperating. Again, I come back to that word. Cooperate comes from Latin for "to work with." We work with God in our salvation because if we don't, then we aren't really taking part in Christ's sacrifice (this is why we see foreshadowings in the Old Testament covenants, when the Hebrews not only had to say that they were Hebrews, nor accept God's mercy with words, but had to do acts of faith, to go inside, to paint blood over their doors, and to eat the passover lamb...God wants us to cooperate with Him because it allows us to "own" our salvation, that is, to make salvation our own, "our" salvation, yet not to attribute the glory to ourselves, [b]our[/b] salvation is [b]God's[/b] gift). Cooperation is very necessary.

So, in short, God accomplishes the actual justification, what we would call the subjective justification, but with our assistance because He not only respects our free will to reject it, but actively wills our participation. In other words, God the Father wants the whole family involved in its salvation. God's a "family man."

[jesussaves]

I'm not getting the clear Catholic answer. You say we are justified at the conversion and at any point thereafter before death. Then you say there are degrees of justification, where some are less justified. I realize your story of being late to class would leave on to think you are more justified than the other. Are you saying the one that is less justified isn't justified completely? How are you saying they are both justified, but one is less justified, considering the Protestant notion that both are justified completely. Are both justified completely in Catholic thought? How so if there are degrees? The only way I could see you saying it is from the objective v. subjective issue which I don't think you stated very well. I also understand that in Catholic thought you must be perfect body and soul before entering heaven, which is not in line with Protestant thought that you only need legal justification. In Catholic thought, all that seems necessary is a savior to give you the potential to earn your justification.

Also please note that the good Protestant arguments are that you must increase in sanctification, to increase your vessel as you put it, and you want to. The relation to justification is that justification is completed, but santicfication must still occur. must being stressed again.

Also, I don't understand how you say God's justification is subjective in the last paragraph of the last response.

Edited October 30, 2006 by jesussaves

[jswranch]

I am not sure the two of you hold the same deffinition of:

salvation
justification
forgiveness
merit (all three types)
sanctification

If this was worked out, the two could communicate better.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='1105025' date='Oct 30 2006, 02:36 PM']
I'm not getting the clear Catholic answer. You say we are justified at the conversion and at any point thereafter before death. Then you say there are degrees of justification, where some are less justified. I realize your story of being late to class would leave on to think you are more justified than the other. Are you saying the one that is less justified isn't justified completely? How are you saying they are both justified, but one is less justified, considering the Protestant notion that both are justified completely. Are both justified completely in Catholic thought? How so if there are degrees? The only way I could see you saying it is from the objective v. subjective issue which I don't think you stated very well. I also understand that in Catholic thought you must be perfect body and soul before entering heaven, which is not in line with Protestant thought that you only need legal justification. In Catholic thought, all that seems necessary is a savior to give you the potential to earn your justification.

Also please note that the good Protestant arguments are that you must increase in sanctification, to increase your vessel as you put it, and you want to. The relation to justification is that justification is completed, but santicfication must still occur. must being stressed again.

Also, I don't understand how you say God's justification is subjective in the last paragraph of the last response.
[/quote]

Let me see what I can do in light of JSWRanch's post.

These definitions are out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and are therefore authoritative:

[b]Salvation - [/b]The forgiveness of sins and restoration of friendship with God, which can be done by God alone (cf. CCC 169).

[b]Justification - [/b]The gracious action of God which frees us from sin and communicates "the righteousness of God" (Romans 3:22). Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man (cf. CCC 1987-1989).

[b]Merit - [/b]The reward which God promises and gives to those who love him and by his grace perform good works. One cannot "merit" justification or eternal life, which are the free gift of God; the source of any merit we have before God is due to the grace of Christ in us (cf. CCC 2006).

For the others, strict definitions are not provided in the Catechism. What I'm going to do is list a sequence of things which must be understood in a progressive order. I do this only because I know that all of it is quite confusing to me when organizing it. Make sure you grasp one step before going to the next. I'll number them for easy reference.

1. Justification for us is a process which begins at Baptism when grace enters the soul.

2. This process is first initiated by God, who inspires a person toward conversion.

3. All grace was earned by Christ through His Cross.

4. This grace was "deposited" in order to be drawn out and given to mankind, which had fallen and needed grace to be restored.

5. Jesus constantly offers us His grace.

6. We are moved by God to accept this grace.

7. This is done by the grace of God working in our lives but not yet living in our souls.

8. We accept it, but we must accept it with an act of faith; the will to be saved is not enough by itself because it is vain if it is not lived out.

9. We live the faith and, by the prompting and assistance of God, we open ourselves by those faith-acts to grace in the soul.

10. The first faith-act is to receive Baptism, which places grace in the soul.

11. At this point, one is justified, that is, he has received [i]gracious action of God which frees us from sin and communicates "the righteousness of God."[/i]

12. Because [i]justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man[/i], it is a process by which a whole person is made into a better version of themselves.

13. Since all people are in the image of God, the better version of any one person is more perfectly in conformity with Christ.

14. Grace brings about justification.

15. Therefore, grace is that which conforms a person to Christ, attaching the person to Christ so that he may be saved.

16. This is necessary because it was Christ who suffered and died and rose again and it is we who, being baptized into His death, rise with Him.

17. However, it is not only by doing as He did, that is, dying and rising, that we are saved. That would mean that we merely needed to follow His example to be saved. We would be saving ourselves on our own, just following His example.

18. Therefore, we must be bound to Christ. Only by being branches grafted onto the vine will we be saved.

19. When we are grafted onto Christ, the vine, His sap (what some authors call the Holy Spirit in this analogy) runs through us, providing us with the nutrients (grace) to bear fruit (ultimately, our salvation).

20. Thus, our fruit (and ultimately, our salvation) is all ultimately Christ's and not our own.

21. Therefore, salvation is Christ's and we are allowed to share in it by being joined to Him (making us co-heirs).

22. However, the fruit is also ours, inasmuch as we freely cooperate with grace in helping it grow by applying the nutrients, all with the instructions provided by the signals from the vine (the inspirations of the Holy Spirit, spiritual direction from the Church, etc), in order to grow and bear good fruit.

23. Inasmuch as the fruit is ours and we cooperated with God in its production, we rightly say that we shared in the merit, but this is only because Christ merited it for us and, as a gift, allowed us to share, and therefore it is a gift.

24. We do not merit it in the strict sense of being deserving of the gift in the first place or of earning it, but we do "deserve" it in much the same way a person deserves a gift when they use it as well as they can, that is, they didn't purchase the gift, but they are worthy of it. We don't purchase salvation, Christ does, but by His grace and work in our lives, which we cooperate with freely, He makes us worthy to receive salvation.

25. Since we, as branches on the vine, grow, we are growing in justification. As long as we are on the vine and truly will to bear good fruit and cooperate with grace, we will bear good fruit. If we do not will to bear good fruit and do not cooperate with grace, we will bear bad fruit and will fall away or be cut away from the vine. All branches bearing good fruit, no matter what the size of the fruit or how good, are saved--they have the Holy Spirit and grace and are part of the vine--they are justified. However, those which are more perfectly joined to the vine, that is, which bear greater and more glorious fruit as a result of their willingness and cooperation with grace, are more perfectly justified and the Lord is more pleased with them, but not in a way that He is displeased with the others which bear good fruit.

Anyway, does that make any sense? I assure you, if you step into this way of thinking of salvation, many of Jesus' parables will make a great deal more sense.

[jesussaves]

I don't think the above really adds anything. I haven't gone through it completely, but it seems that way.

I think the justificaiton in the catholic thought could be said as legitimate in this way. When someone does good, they retract what needs to be justified by Jesus. Their subjective justification makes up for the objective justification of Jesus. My issue with this is that it might not be true necessarily by Catholic standards. If we have to be pure on the inside of our soul by our own means, albeit by grace, eventually via earth or purgatory, then Jesus didn't really justify us directly, he only "justified" us in the sense that he allowed us the possibilty of being justified. I wonder if that is really justification at all. It could be contrued that way, but I'm not sure that's what is true.