Grace, Sanctification, Works?

[thessalonian]

Grace, what is it?

Excuse my broad brushing here but I have listened to many protestant pastors with regard to what I am about to say. Most Protestants, including pastors don’t understand grace. It seems like their perception of it is that God just decides when we repent to overlook our sins. They seem to dissociate sanctification from grace as though it just kind of happens maybe with the help of the holy spirit but they seem to have a disconnect between grace and the cross as if our justification is tied to the cross, but any sanctification involving works after we become “saved” are kind of hanging out there in limbo and they don’t really seem to know how to handle them. Grace is fully admitted when they become “saved” but after that point they seem to have a hard time reconciling grace with the life of the Christian. They will say for instance that works are evidence of salvation but not the cause of it. I would rather say that works are a completion of grace, i.e. we are moved by grace to act. Our actions are Christ working in and through us (see Eph 3:20-21) and we could not do them on our own. “without him I can do nothing but in him I can do ALL THINGS! This overcomes the difficulty of the alleged dichotomy between James and Paul (along with the fact that works of the law are not the same as works of charity, i.e. Is 1). Then we can see where romans 2:4-8 comes in where we read that we are judged by our works. The good on to everlasting glory, while those who do evil on to everlasting damnation. Also in this regard it is good to reflect on the story of the sheep and the goats in Matt 25. It is the doers of the word and not just the hearers that are saved we are told elsewhere. T

hey also seem to have a disconnect between the cross and the application of it to our lives. Thus they continue to use the passage “It is finished” against Catholicism in an unwarranted fashion, neglecting to note that they have just as much of a problem if there is not such a thing as a life of grace in declaring the day that they were saved. It was not 2000 years ago on the cross, though that is when the grace was earned. Grace in my view is not just God being nice and forgetting about our sins. It is God working in and through the world to bring about salvation. There are many forms of grace including natural grace, sanctifying grace, actual grace.

This separation of sanctification and works and grace that I perceive allows them to continue in their denial of purgatory as well, which is primarily about sanctification. They don’t seem to understand or want to understand that God’s grace is an ongoing thing and that it can be used at the moment of death or in some time period afterward to complete the sanctification that is not guaranteed to be completed in this life, so that one might enter heaven.

Any protestants care to take a shot at what I have said?

God Bless

[thessalonian]

I think this is a critical issue. Can we discuss it?

[thessalonian]

I'm still hoping for some discussion on this. I think it is very significant and would like to see it developed. Protestants define grace generaly or salvation as an unmerrited gift. That really does not tell what grace is however and so they seem stuck in this moment of grace when one gets saved and don't seem to talk about it as an ongoing input to the Christian walk, generating faith (increases) and works which are a completion of the grace done in faith. I heard just last weekend in regard to works that "we should naturally want to do works for God when we become saved". This seems to separate the works from grace. Is it natural or God's spirit welling up in us and motivating us to do good. I would lean more toward the latter. Thus we do not boast when we do good for it is God working in and through us.

[PapaHilarious]

i was an Evangelical up until 2006, so i'm quite familiar with this discussion. that is...i'm familiar with it now that i'm on the other side. grace was never something i though too much about previously.

just the other day, in fact, i was talking with my mom (who is a life-long Evangelical) about grace and she was confused enough to actually stop me and ask "what exactly do you mean by [i]grace[/i]?" she didn't really see the word as applying to anything outside of God giving us the opportunity to accept Him once and for all.

in very simplistic terms, i tried to help her understand in this sense...

[size=3][quote][b]me:[/b] you believe there are things we can do to be closer in our walk with God, right? prayer, Bible-reading, etc.

[b]mom:[/b] yes, of course.

[b]me:[/b] well, those are examples of grace working in our lives. from a Catholic perspective, we see God's grace as the opportunities He gives us throughout our lives to choose Him and his Will.[/quote][/size]

i know JPII has a good definition of grace that Christopher West uses in his talks, but i have to look it up. can't remember off the top of my head...

[N/A Gone]

Hey thes,

simple answer. Yes.

The reason? A disconnect with justification and sanctification. Justification is a 1 time, 1 moment thing and (if they believe in sanctification) it is just icing on the cake after the fact. Any concept of sanctification(or more properly theosis) as any type of soteriological implication is fallen on deaf ears.

Thus, grace as an add to sanctification and something that pushes us forward in theosis has no place. The meaning of the word changes into either "God giving us something we dont deserve" or "Us doing something for another they do not deserve"

does that reconcile with your experience as well papa?

[st-annes]

It seems to me that a lot of evangelicals today are indeed grossly oversimplifying the issue. To hear them talk, it sounds like all you have to do is take a few seconds to say 'the prayer of salvation' and that's it. You don't have to actually [i]do anything[/i]... even though Jesus didn't only talk to people, he [i]did things[/i]... If 'grace' is some magic shampoo, you just say some words and it makes you better than other people, and it doesn't matter how you affect the world around you, then what did Jesus come for?

[Starets]

[quote name='st-annes' post='1426904' date='Nov 29 2007, 08:06 PM']It seems to me that a lot of evangelicals today are indeed grossly oversimplifying the issue. To hear them talk, it sounds like all you have to do is take a few seconds to say 'the prayer of salvation' and that's it. You don't have to actually [i]do anything[/i]... even though Jesus didn't only talk to people, he [i]did things[/i]... If 'grace' is some magic shampoo, you just say some words and it makes you better than other people, and it doesn't matter how you affect the world around you, then what did Jesus come for?[/quote]

In terms of your analogy, It would seem that Jesus went though 3 years of public ministry and all the agony of the Passion just to give peoiple the Magic Shampoo. To some fundamentalists and evangelicals that I have come across, expecting [b]ANYTHING[/b] more from a believer than to Accept The Magic Shampoo is "Works Salvation"

[thessalonian]

Thanks for the dissucsion folks. I put it on Catholic.com and got no disuccision. I think this is something in Catholic apologetics that needs to be spoken of more and I think Rev's post says it all. This post from over on God Tube does as well.

"The truth is that Catholicism is an abomination to God just as Islam, Mormonism, Satanism and every false religion that emphasizes works above grace and a man as equal to God. Remember also, Mary needed a savior too!!!"

They don't see the tie between grace and works even though passages such as Eph 3:20-21 which speaks of the power of God working in and through us clearly says it! Sometimes they will give it some lip service but only as an afterthought to an objection about faith alone. Why not praise God for what we do? Why rob grace of it's power in us? It is they who are separating it from salvation.

[thessalonian]

Another observation is that they (sorry again for the broadbrushing) seem to want to pit works against grace but they rarely mention that faith is a product of grace. Further when speaking to a 5 point calvanist they don't really deal very well with the problem that there has to be grace before faith and that all men in some fashion recieve God's grace.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1427274' date='Nov 30 2007, 10:18 AM']I think Rev's post says it all.[/quote]

woot-woot, I needed props today. Thanks for putting my words on the fridge.

[dairygirl4u2c]

most prots don't understand the theology. but then, most catholcis don't either. not much of a basis.
the best argument, is to create one that seems reasonable.

reasonable prots believe santification is necessary, works are necessary. they are saved by faith alone but faith is never alone as luther said. the santificaiton simply does not justify.

catholics say the santification justifies, and also that works are necessary.

catholics do not define that you have to be perfected by your death. they do not say you have to have more works than bad deeds or otherwise scale your works. they simply say santification that does occur also justifies.

they do not say that you ahve to have an increasing amount of works are you progress in holitness. though, this would be an implied doctrine i think. but, it's also be implied in prot camps that it has to increase as you get holier, otherwise you were never saved to begin with, or you were living a lie (pick the prot brand here). the question isn't about the calculus of increasing, it's what the santification techincally does.

it's really in a awy a minor point, does the santification add to the justification or not? in a way it's a major point if you want to split hairs. in both camps it has to be occurring. since neither camps defines who much or whatever, i don't see it as major other than a fundamental judgement call about how we are saved.

Edited November 30, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

as per policy arguments regarding each position. saying it justifies shows the "true" nature of the sinner being changed and has them participate.
saying it doesn't focuses, arguably, more on Jesus's work, if you're big on the atonement.

for the prot brand that says OSAS it also establishes that you're justified so can't unbe. of course, the reasonable prot to me doesn't beleve in OSAS.

what would a loving father do? in a way, he'd love you no matter what, so you're justified. (on a related note, there's a mitaken belief in catho circles that prots believe you can sin all you want. this is simply not true. at least for the reasonabe ones. so he might love you enough to let you beaver dam yourself, that's an open question but is not what's being discussed here) but, i side more with cathos. he loves you enough to give you free will. if you're increasing, he'd call it what it is and let you participate.

Edited November 30, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[thessalonian]

"most prots don't understand the theology."

What prompted my post was not individual protestants. It was protestant pastors and radio show hosts. Furhter your points about justification and sanctification and the different definitions the two sides have should certainly be explored in the discussion of this topic. But I think the real issue is false dichotomies, pitting works vs. faith vs. grace. works vs. grace.

"reasonable prots believe santification is necessary, works are necessary."

Then why can't I get protestants to give a clear answer regarding my question of billy graham and a new convert who is a drug addict fornicator going over a cliff on a bus together. They simply duck and dodge when I ask it. If they believe in imputed righteousness and sanctification then they have a serious issue that they will not address. If Billy (who went through a life of sanctification) and the druggie sex addict are treated exactly the same (assumining imputed righteousness) then sanctification is indeed superflous and unneccessary. Their theology cries out for purgatory but they cannot see it. I've won a few over to a cleansing after death but pastors will not admit to this.

Edited November 30, 2007 by thessalonian

[dairygirl4u2c]

i was just clarifying that because their positions are flaky doens't mean the prot argument is lacking. it just means they're flaky with their positions.

i didn't mean it's not an important thread.
certainly, from a practical point, most protestants seriously need to consider their views.
this is definitely a good thread for those, most, people, who don't understand the positions.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i think they'd say at conversion you're suddenly a flower and not dung. but, as a flower, you're still expected to grow. santification would then be necessary, the growth.

but, others need to argue their own points.

santifiation isn't necessarily like the flower. it could be defined necessarily as what's required to be justified. if you said it was a prerequisite to justification, then santification would necessarily be superfluous.

so it'd be necessarily superfluous with a strict definition of justification. but it'd be simply actually superfluous with the flower.

Edited November 30, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c