Thy Geekdom Come Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Storm, if you're willing, I'd like to host a debate with you on the Catholic theology of justification. If we do, here are my conditions: [list=1] [*]No one aside from us will post in the thread, except moderators if a legitimate need arises (a violation of phorum guidelines). [*]All quotes purported to be representing Catholicism must come from an official document of the Catholic Church. [*]Since I'm not familiar with your beliefs, I will take your word on what you believe. [*]All quotes on non-Catholic Christian beliefs will come from accepted sources (writings of the founders or leaders of denominations). [*]No other topics will be brought up unless directly related to justification and unless they are merely passing references (i.e. that they don't lend themselves to breaking off into a side-debate). [*]There will be no pressure to respond right away (more interested in thorough responses than quick ones). [*]Permission will be given to both parties to cite or quote the debate in part or whole. [/list] Sound reasonable? God bless, Raphael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted September 11, 2009 Author Share Posted September 11, 2009 Storm and I have been discussing this behind the scenes. We've agreed to post for now on a weekly interval (we'll each have a week to respond). The argument is "Catholic theology of justification is biblically founded." The terms above have been agreed to, with one addition: neither person shall post a point or counterpoint of more than 10 reasonably sized paragraphs. I will be taking the affirmative. Storm will be taking the negative. Because we do not know exactly where Storm stands on the issue, he will take the first post by next Thursday to explain his views. Then I will make a summary of the Catholic position for the next week, and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 It would be nice to have some different debate rules penned somewhere so we don't have to come up with them if doing something like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormstopper Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]1) In the book of Job, the question is asked, "How then can man be justified with God?" (25:4). T[/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]he allegedly "infallible" Council of Trent has gone on record as having answered Job's question by saying that if "the Catholic doctrine of justification is not received faithfully and firmly" one cannot be justified. (Session 6, #16). This is serious business. [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]We contend that the Roman Catholic Church (henceforth, "Catholic Church") as well as all those "rites" which are in communion with her, have eclipsed the gospel of our salvation with a cloud of darkness that has become pernicious to the souls of men. Let us define our terms. Justification is a legal word having reference to trial and judgment. It does [u]not[/u] mean to make a person subjectively righteous, any more than to condemn someone means to make a person subjectively wicked (Deut 25:1, Prov 17:15; Job 40:8; Isa 5:23; 1 Kings 8:32; Rms 8:33-34). And Justification does not "make" the sinner any more righteous than when the Scripture says "Christ was [u]made[/u] sin for us", make [u]Him[/u] any more the sinner! (2 Cor 5:21). [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]In the spiritual sense, it is the verdict of the Supreme Tribunal [u]declaring[/u] a person to be righteous based on the sinner claiming the righteousness of Christ as his own. The Judge then[/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] acknowledges the debt has been paid, the law satisfied. In actuality, it is the righteousness of Christ [i][color="#ff0000"]imputed[/color][/i] [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] to the believer. Justification is not based on the holiness of the one who believes, but on the holiness of the One in whom the sinner believes. It pertains to what God does [u]for[/u] us, not what He does [u]in[/u] us (which is sanctification). So. Is the ground of our justification based on the intervention of the righteousness of Christ imputed [u]TO[/u] us (my view)--- or the righteousness of Christ infused and working [u]WITHIN[/u] us (my opponent's view). [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]Let us begin by submitting the first piece of the puzzle in stating that any correct view of justification, must have as its origin, a correct perspective of our [u]condemnation[/u], for they are inseparable. So we cannot fully refute Rome's way of salvation until we have first discredited Rome's way of condemnation. If the Catholic Church is in error on what is the ground of our condemnation, then she certainly is suspect when it comes to defining the ground of our justification. According to our Romish friends, our condemnation results from our "Adamic privation". Adam's posterity are said to be born into the same spiritual state that Adam's sin had placed him---deprived of holiness and justice (Trent, Session 5, #2 & #3). [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]This privation is called "original sin". Rome considers being in this state of original sin worthy of condemnation which must be taken away before heaven can be attained. Consequently, she rushes her babies to the baptismal font which is said to remove this "transfused" pollution (ibid) from Adam, [i]"in order that in them, what they contracted by generation, may be washed by regeneration" . . .[/i]and that, [i]"when they are conceived, they contract through Adam, injustice as their own." [/i](Trent, 5th Session, #4; 6th session, #3). Thus, Rome understands our condemnation stemming from [u]the individual state of sinfulness inherited from Adam.[/u][/color][/size][/font][u][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] [u][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font][/u] [/color][/size][/font][/u][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]2) On the other hand, a correct explication of Romans 5:12-21 yields quite a different conclusion. There we read that Adam's [u]act[/u] of sin is the sole cause of death and condemnation, and this condemnation is not based upon any state of "transfused" pollution [u]by[/u] Adam whatsoever, but rather, the text forces us to conclude in the clearest language, that our condemnation is to be attributed to nothing other than Adam's sin [u]instantly imputed to mankind at the time of the offence.[/u] While we admit that Adam's corrupt nature is indeed transmitted to his descendents, as like begets like, it is not our Adamic [u]nature[/u] that immediately condemns us, but rather, Adam's sole and solitary sin. This trespass [u]alone[/u] is what is repeated with sustained emphasis in five successive verses by the apostle as the basis for mankind's condemnation: [i]"For if through the offence of ONE, many be dead" [/i](vs. 15, or as stated elsewhere, "As in Adam, all die..." 1 Cor 15:22). [i]"For the judgment was by ONE to condemnation" [/i](vs. 16). [i]"For if by ONE man's offense, death reigned..." [/i](vs. 17). [i]"Therefore, by the offence of ONE, judgment came upon all men to condemnation" [/i](vs. 18). [i]"For by ONE man's disobedience, many were constituted sinners..." [/i](vs. 19). Hence, because Adam is the federal head of the human race, this one man's [u]act[/u] condemned us by virtue of solidaric [color="#ff0000"]imputation [/color]in union [u]with[/u] the act; which is why the [u]righteous[/u] act of One (Jesus)--- shall justify us by virtue of solidaric [color="#ff0000"]imputation [/color]in union [u]with[/u] that act (vs. 18). We begin to see then that the concept of [color="#ff0000"]imputation[/color][color="#008000"] will play a vital role in this discussion--which will be defined in paragraph 4.[/color][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font] [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]3) Our debate topic alleges that the Catholic Church theology of justification is biblically based. However, as we have discovered, Rome draws her conclusions on salvation from a faulty [u]un[/u]biblical understanding of both the effects and corruption of Adam's sin. [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]This cracked foundation upon which the Catholic Church bases her diagnosis, leads to an equally cracked, unbiblical remedy. In the Roman Catholic scheme of things, the grace of God is "stored up" by the Church and then dispensed through the sacraments in order to "make" men righteous---just as Adam "made" men unrighteous. As the sinful nature of Adam was [u]infused[/u] into man leading to condemnation, so must the grace of Christ be [u]infused[/u] into man in order to justify him. We deny this. For just as our condemnation was not mediated by a "transfusion of pollution", but stems from our direct union with Adam as the federal head of humanity, so too is justification not mediated through a "transfusion of grace", but stems directly by our union "in Christ" by FAITH ALONE. This union "in Christ" by faith is mentioned over 20 times in Scripture: See 1 John 2:5; 3:24, Rms 3:24, 8:1, 8:39; Eph 1:3, 2:13, 3:11-12; Phil 3:9, 14, 4:19; 1 Tim 3:13, 2 Tim 1:1, 1:9, 1:13, 2:1, 2:10, 3:15, 1 Cor 1:2, 1:30, Col 1:28, 2:6; 1 Thess 1:1, 2:14, 1 Peter 5:14. So what is the key to heaven's gate? Is it the righteousness of Christ [color="#ff0000"]imputed[/color][color="#008000"] to us, or is it the righteousness of Christ infused within us?[/color][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][color="#008000"] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][color="#008000"][/color][/color][/size][/font] [/color][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][color="#008000"]4) We assert that the doctrine of justification consists of God's [i][color="#ff0000"]forensic[/color][/i] declaration of pardon and acceptance. The righteousness contemplated by Him in conjunction with this declaration is neither attained by human effort, nor infused or worked out internally by God in the human soul. Rather, it is the righteousness of Jesus Christ[/color][color="#ff0000"] [i]imputed[/i][/color] to those who believe. . . period. The two words in red will now be defined for clarity. The Bible describes Jesus as our "Surety" (Hebrews 7:22). This is a forensic (a law or legal term). In the eyes of the law, a surety is one who becomes identified with the debtor (they are now one and the same) so that [i]he[/i] can be directly approached and required to pay the debt of the debtor if the same fails to pay. On a spiritual level, the law of God has come to us and demanded payment for failure to comply; for He had decreed that the wages of sin is death. Because He is the God of inflexible justice, the consequences of sin had to be dealt with. Yet by His unspeakable mercy, He decided to bypass us and went to Christ instead, who gave Himself as the ransom price for our sin debt (Matt 20:28). This means that Jesus endured the wrath of God that should have been placed on [i]us [/i](Isa 53). [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]As for the concept of [color="#ff0000"]imputation, [color="#008000"]it simply means to attribute to someone that which he does not possess in himself. Imputation does not change the object, but it changes the way the object is regarded.[/color] [/color][color="#008000"]Our sins were imputed to Christ on Calvary (2 Cor 5:19-21). This did not subjectively make Him a sinner, but it did have a decisive bearing on the way Divine justice treated Him (Isa 53). [/color][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] God justifies the [u]ungodly[/u] (Rms 4:5). This is a [i]forensic[/i] declaration immediately imputed to the sinner BY FAITH ALONE. The ungodly simply do not [u]have[/u] any inward or outward good deeds to plead with. Consequently, we are justified--- just as instantaneously as the sin of Adam was forthwith imputed to the human race; just as quickly as our sins were imputed to Christ at Golgotha; and just as immediately as the ungodly thief on the cross was justified by his "remember me".[/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font] [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]5) Protestant soteriology agrees with Paul in that they want their lives to be "hid with Christ in God" (Col 3:3)--- [i]"in Him [/i] [see paragraph 3] [i][u]not[/u] having a righteousness of my own, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God through faith." [/i]Justification by faith alone signals the immediate and complete pardon of our sins (by His [u]death[/u] ) and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ who completely fulfilled the law of God [u]for[/u] us per Matt 5:17--- (by His [u]life[/u]). "We were reconciled to God by the death of His Son; much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life" (Romans 5:10). We wish to note here that the Catholic Church does indeed believe in the concept of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Their fatal flaw is that it is not sufficient in and of itself to give us a right standing before the Judgment throne. We read: "[/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]If any one shall say, that men are justified either by the [color="#ff0000"]sole imputation[/color] of the righteousness of Christ. . . to the exclusion of that grace and charity which is shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Spirit. . . let him be accursed." (Trent, Session 6, canon 11). We categorically deny this for two reasons: The first is because the Catholic Church has the gaul to [u]combine[/u] both justification and sanctification into one lump of clay instead of separating them as the Bible clearly designates (see paragraph 8 & 9). [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]The second reason we deny Trent is because biblical salvation is often alluded to as something we wear. The wedding garment for a guest was traditionally supplied by the Host. Note that because the guest came in wearing his own clothes (bringing his own good works), he was systematically thrown out (Matt 22:12). The Catholic Church says that our good works "increase" the righteousness we are given at justification (Trent, Session 5, canon 24). On the contrary, the righteousness of Christ is perfect [u]as is[/u] per Mark 9:3, where Christ's own raiment is illustrative of what WE will be wearing. [i]"It became exceedingly white as snow, so no fuller on earth can white them". [/i]In God's view, we are in desperate need of a change of clothing. That clothing is the righteousness of Christ which is described as something we wear, but which is actually something that is [color="#ff0000"]imputed [/color][color="#008000"]to us (Rms 4:6;11). [i]"He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation. . .covered me with the robe of righteousness. . .take away the filthy garment from her. . .behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee[/i] [a complete and immediate pardon][i] and I will clothe thee with a change of raiment" [/i](Isa 61:10, Zech 3:3, Rev 3:5). Thus, we are asked to "PUT ON" the Lord Jesus Christ (Rms 13:14). The Catholic Church attempts to "add bleach" to the wash in the form of good works increasing (or making "whiter") our righteousness before God to the point that it renovates the sinner and now becomes acceptable at the bar of justice. Trent says that when someone is justified, "the robe given to them through Jesus Christ must be [u]preserved[/u] [by good works] pure and spotless so that we may bear it before the Judgment Seat" (Session 6, chap. 7). NO! [/color][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][color="#008000"]Again, the wedding garment was supplied by the Bridegroom! What a horrible thought to bear the unattainable burden of preserving a pure and spotless robe before the eyes of a thrice-holy God, agonizing all your life in a desperate attempt to keep it spot-free. No one on earth is capable of this, as Paul admits (Phil 3:12). The righteousness of Christ is perfect AS IS, since no fuller on earth can whiten it, and we are given this [i]"gift of righteousness" [/i]WHOLE and ENTIRE, by faith alone (Rms 5:17). "In Him we have been made COMPLETE" and "have entered into His REST, ceasing from our own works" (Col 2:10; Heb 4:10). Indeed, our righteousness is Christ [i]Himself..."the Lord our righteousness" [/i](Jer 23:6).[/color][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font] [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]6) In regard to Justification being by faith alone, we need to recognize that the typical Roman Catholic complaint is that Martin Luther manipulated the Scriptures by inserting the word "alone" following "faith" to validate his doctrine. However, according to R.C. Sproul's, "Faith Alone", ROMAN CATHOLIC translators [u]before[/u] Luther had done the same thing! The Nuremberg Bible of 1483 reads, "[i]"Nur durch den glaben" [/i]and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) read, [i]"per sola fede". [/i] Furthermore, in our own day, representatives of John Paul II signed a joint statement with Protestants that have the Catholic side agreeing to the resolution that justification is by faith alone (section 2C, Annex of the Joint Declaration). Moreover, in 1999, JPII became the first pope in history to approve the document which contained the sentence, "man is justified by faith alone". Then on 11/19/08, at his audience at St. Peter's Square, Pope Benedict became the second pope in history to admit, "when we read we are justified by faith apart from works of the law, Luther at that point translated, "justification by faith alone". I shall return to this point at the end of the catechesis". At the end, he stated, "Luther's phrase of faith alone is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love." From this admission, we are convinced that the document on justification issued by the Council of Trent, was in NO WAY INFALLIBLE as the Catholic Church claims. Why? Because the Council's rejection of Luther's thesis (6th session, canon 9) in a blanket denial [u]with no qualifiers[/u] such as that issued forth from Benedict, was a lynch job that the Lord God Almighty would never approve of. They certainly were well aware of the [u]content[/u] of Luther's writings because in 1520, Leo X appointed a commission to [u]evaluate[/u] his work, which they subsequently condemned in the papal bull [i]Exsurge Domine. [/i]Luther's books were thereafter burned and he was ex-communicated in still yet another Bull. So the Council of Trent was more than a little aquainted with his writings. And guess what? [i] LUTHER'S WORKS WERE NEVER OPPOSED TO FAITH DEVOID OF LOVE! [/i]In a personal correspondance with Raphael, he told me, "If a Catholic understands faith to mean, "faith working through love", then a Catholic can say we are saved by faith alone. [But] Lutheran theology states that faith saves regardless of whether the faith is lived out." Here, my opponent echoes Trent: "If any one shall say that the sinner is justified by faith alone, in the sense that nothing else is required...let him be accursed". [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]Both Raphael and Trent have correctly identified the root evil of what James means when he says, [b]'MAN IS NOT JUSTIFIED BY FAITH ALONE" [/b](2:24). But they are guilty of gross misrepresentation, railing against a complete misunderstanding of [i]sole fide[/i] which Luther never taught, neither did the Reformers ever believe, nor do Protestants today! Trent said, "the charity of God is poured forth by the Holy Spirit in the hearts of those that are justified" (Session 5, chap 7). And Luther said, [i]"[We] are accepted as such through the imputation of Christ's righteousness, but our hearts also become righteous because God's Holy Spirit is poured into the heart and He brings love and new obedience with Him." [/i]("The Theology of Martin Luther", by P. Althaus, p. 234). [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font] [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]7) One can see by this single citation that Trent's smear campaign against Luther's doctrine was uncalled for since he did not believe that the grace of justification was at all "alone". Justification by faith alone is a God-glorifying term that Luther and the Reformers used to rightly [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]differentiate between the act of God justifying the ungodly by virtue of the imputed righteousness of Christ, and set it apart [i][u]from[/u] [/i]the principle of life implanted in us for the ethical transformation of the sinner (sanctification). Eyes and feet may be "working together in love" in the same human body, but it is only the eyes that see! Faith and works may be present in the believer, but it is faith alone that justifies! [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]The reader may better be able to grasp the source of both parties discontent by considering this: We submit that through faith alone, God simply declares us righteous on the merits of Christ alone. The Greek verb, [i]dikaiow, [/i]meant to declare not guilty or to declare innocent of all charges (Deut 25:1; Isa 5:23; Micah 6:11, Rms 8:33). What many Catholics forget is that the Council of Trent did indeed say that "...not only are we [i]reputed[/i], but we are truly called and [i]are[/i] just, receiving justice within us..." To be "reputed just" means to "declare just", so for Rome, justification is indeed forensic as it involves God's legal declaration, and on this, both sides agree. We also agree that God "makes just" and "declares just"---[u]but not in the same way![/u] The Catholic Church says the declaration of justice [u]follows the inward renovation[/u] of the regenerate sinner by good deeds produced in them by the Holy Spirit. For Protestants, the declaration of justice follows a person's confession of [u]faith;[/u] and the imputation of Another's righteousness is charged to our account just as quickly as the imputation of someone else's sin was charged to our account at the time of the offence in the Garden of Eden. Jesus did not say to the woman, "Now that you have washed my feet with your hair, the gate to heaven is now open". He said, "Thy [u]faith[/u] has saved thee; go in peace" (Luke 7:50). [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font] [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]8) The Protestant agrees with t[/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]he Westminster Confession which distinguishes between justification and sanctification: "Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, yet they differ, in that God in justification imputeth the righteousness of Christ; in sanctification, his Spirit infuseth grace, and enableth to the exercise thereof; in the former, sin is pardoned; in the other, it is subdued; the one doth equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that, perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation; the other is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but growing up to perfection." (Larger Catechism, Q. 77.) In other words, God's forensic declaration implies the changed [u]status[/u] of the believer; it does not change the believer's [u]nature[/u]. [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font] [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]9) By gratuitous and unauthorized speculation, the Council of Trent unwarrantly uses the terms justification and sanctification interchangeably: [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]"Justification is not the mere remission of sins, but [u]also[/u] the sanctification and renovation of the inward man..." (Session 6, ch. 7). Here they have[/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] deceitfully snuck in the most subtle form of a doctrine of justification by works that has yet appeared on planet earth. It is a subtle deception because by making the work of the Holy Spirit [u]in[/u] us part of our right standing before God, it seems to piously preclude the notion of self-righteousness, so Catholics think all is well, but in truth, it is fundamentally erroneous. Why? Because this "infused righteousness" upon which remission of sins rests in[i] part[/i], (due to "[u]sole[/u] imputation" being ruled out) is NOT propitiatory (i.e. it has in it nothing of the nature of a satisfaction to divine justice, nor is it a full cure for the pardon of sin). With unsurpassing clarity, the Bible tells us that, "[u]Declaring[/u] His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, is through having faith in His blood (the death of Christ) which demonstrates He is the Justifier of those who believe in Jesus" (Rms 3:25-26). By making sanctification [u]part of[/u] justification, the judicial aspects of sin are overlooked and obscured. Man is thus received into the Divine favor without any true and proper expiation of his guilt. Ergo, when push comes to shove, the Catholic Church deems justification as a renewing and sanctifying act on the part of God and only a half-hearted declarative one. It is not that Divine act whereby sin is pardoned, but whereby sin is [u]purged[/u] ---or, as they state elsewhere, "Justification detaches man from sin, frees them from its enslavement and purifies their hearts" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 1990). As one has wisely noted, "Roman Catholicism observes justification as [i]pro[/i]spective and not [i]retro[/i]spective, in its essential nature. It is not the forgiveness of "sins that are past," (retrospective) but "the cure and prevention of sins that are present and future ([i]pro[/i]spective). The element of guilt is lost sight of, and the propitiatory work of Christ is lost sight of along with it. The whole work of redemption is interpreted to be merely a method of purification. That inward holiness which succeeds the forgiveness of sins is made to take the place of the atoning death and the imputed righteousness of the Redeemer. The ground of justification is thus a personal and subjective one. By co-mingling the terms:[i] [/i]"Justification [u]includes[/u] sanctification" (CCC # 2019) she has[font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] attributed to [u]grace-produced works[/u], a power that propitiates, or satisfies God for sin". In complete contradiction to the word of God which tells us that no matter what kind of sin, [i]"the [u]blood[/u] of Jesus Christ cleanses us from [u]all[/u] of it" [/i](1 John 1:7), we read that, [i]"Living [u]charity[/u] wipes away venial sin" [/i](CCC # 1394). NO. Not now. Not ever! This is 'another jesus and another gospel' per 2 Cor 11:4."[/color][/size][/font] [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font] [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]10) Roman Catholics continually thank God for working through them to do good deeds which in the end, will merit eternal life. Trent tells us that those "good works done in God" are salvific, and "the good works they perform through the grace of God" deserve eternal life (Session 6, canon 26 & 31-32). But Jesus told the story of a Pharisee who [u]thanked God[/u] for the graces he received which resulted in him turning out to be quite an exemplary fellow. He was good, kind, honest, generous and even fasted twice a week. But the text bluntly informs us that this man was NOT JUSTIFIED![/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"](Luke 18:11-14). See also when Jesus directed the woman taken in adultery, "go and sin no more". He was commanding her to live a life of holiness and purity. But this new life of sanctification was only possible as she first grasped the hope of [u]justification[/u] in the promise given to her: [i]"Neither do I condemn you" [/i](John 8:11). [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font] [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]End.[/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][/color][/size][/font] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted September 25, 2009 Author Share Posted September 25, 2009 As a preliminary, I would like to reiterate that Storm and I are making our opening statements. I will not be attempting to address his opening statement with my own, but to explain in a nutshell what the position of the Catholic Church is regarding justification. Just to be clear on my sources: [i]The Scriptures I use are the New American Bible, not because I consider them the best (I prefer the Revised Standard Version Second Catholic Edition), but because it is the most available for anyone observing this debate. The CCC which I cite is the Second Edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The first edition is an unofficial translation. The conciliar documents I quote are, unless otherwise stated, from http://www.ewtn.com/library/.[/i] 1. In the beginning, God made man in His image and likeness (Gen 1:26-27). Man walked with God in "the breezy time of the day" (cf. Gen 3:8). Adam and Eve were made "to know, love, and serve" God (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1721). They were in a state of "original justice" which would "be lost by the sin of our first parents" (CCC 379). They dwelt with God and lived in communion with Him. They spoke with Him familiarly. Then the tempter came. Even then, Satan knew that the way to get to a man was through his stomach. The devil appealed to Eve and drew her and Adam away from God. All it took was an empty promise, "you will be like gods" (Genesis 3:5). They sinned and chose disobedience. In that moment, mankind was changed. Our status as sons was lost. Our nature was altered. Our original justice was gone. "Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted" (Council of Trent, Session 5). Not only were holiness and justice lost to him, but he was changed in a real way. The Council of Trent continues, "the entire Adam through that offense of prevarication was changed in body and soul for the worse" (Council of Trent, Session 5). The cruelest irony of all was that they lost the very thing they had desired. Adam and Eve wished to be like their Father and through sin cut themselves off from Him and the grace that made them capable of being His image and likeness. Yet God would not allow man to go without the hope of salvation: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel" (Genesis 3:15). Despite man's sin, God continued in His infinite mercy to call them to Himself, and began to set about His plan of redemption, so that, through cooperation and participation in the life of grace, which is God's gift, man might be drawn into communion once more and made just once more, in a way far surpassing original justice. 2. At first, God used anticipatory redemption. The sacrifice of animals for sin is hinted at as early as Genesis 3, and the covering over shame with the hide of animals symbolized even from the earliest times the covering of sin by the merit of a sacrifice. When God would see mankind, He would see the animal that was sacrificed, and no harm would come to man. However, this system could not ultimately work. Due to the infinite majesty and dignity of God, an offense against Him carries immense weight. Those who commit sins cannot be saved by the blood of animals (Hebrews 10:4), nor can the simple covering over of sins bring about salvation. [i]Salvation is not only about getting man into heaven, but about getting heaven into man![/i] Hebrews 9:13-14 shows us that the blood of Christ brings about not only a clear conscience, but the ability to serve God. The grace of salvation allows man to act out of love for God. The application of the merits of Christ effects not merely a change of legal status before God, but a change human abilities. The entire renewal of the whole man, or as St. Paul said, putting on the new man (cf. Eph 4:24). The sinful man is replaced by the godly. Righteousness is not merely imputed, as Protestants argue, for that would be for God to call something unclean clean. Rather, when God calls something unclean clean, it truly becomes clean, because God neither deceives nor is deceived. In justification, the sins of a man's past are washed away and his guilt removed, while at the same time, he is healed from the wounds of those sins and strengthened against future sin. 3. How does this change come about? Catholics and Protestants both agree that it comes through faith, yet they diverge at the definition of faith. What is faith? Protestants argue one can be saved sola fide, by faith alone. Catholics argue otherwise. No Catholic would claim that Christ's sacrifice is insufficient to pay the debt of sin, but all Catholics and all other Bible-believing Christians must admit that the work of salvation does not end on Calvary. It is clear from the New Testament that even those who had faith in Christ had some concern that they would not be saved, that is, they strove to remain with Christ (thus Paul triumphs that he has won the race in 2 Timothy 4:7-8). Therefore, a certain amount of human cooperation is required for salvation. Is faith alone sufficient for salvation? According to the Letter to the Romans (1:5), faith is a matter of obedience. Those who have faith act in obedience to the divine will. Indeed, Romans 1:17 reports that the righteous live by faith. Faith and living righteously are bound together. One could ask a single, simple question that would sort out the whole matter: [i]is it possible for a person to be saved if they don't live out their faith, that is, if they believe, but don't practice their belief in hope and love?[/i] If their faith must be living, must be lived out in love, then faith together with their works, the actions of their love, is necessary for salvation. If their faith need not be living, then simply believing in Jesus will excuse a multitude of sins. The Scriptures say that faith has the ability to overcome sin, but that is in a person who, by faith, turns from sin. Nowhere do the Scriptures support the notion that a person may believe and continue in his sins. Indeed, faith without love, faith that does not act itself out in love, is worthless (1 Cor 13). So we are to practice "faith working through love" (Gal 5:6). This working, living faith is what we refer to when we speak of cooperation with God's will. Cooperation or "co-operation" means to "work with." 4. So it may now be necessary to come to a more formal definition of justification. The Catechism of the Catholic Church outlines several main points to justification. In condensed form, a definition of justification follows: "Justification is the most excellent work of God's love made manifest in Christ Jesus and granted by the Holy Spirit," which stems from the meritorious "Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim," (CCC 1994, cf. 1987-1988; CCC 1992) by which sin is remitted and man is interiorly sanctified and renewed, detached from sin, and purified (CCC 1989-1990), and by which "cooperation between God's grace and man's freedom" (CCC 1983) is established, and "'the righteousness of God through Jesus Christ' and through Baptism" is communicated to us (CCC 1987). This all ultimately boils down to two main aspects of justification: it is divine and it is human. This is similar to conversion in as much as the two are related in their dynamic between God and man: "Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, and so accepts forgiveness and righteousness from on high" (CCC 2018). 5. Justification may be compared to exercise. Simply because I know that I am overweight and that exercise will save me, and believe it (what's not to believe?), that does not mean that I am losing weight simply by this knowledge. So it is with faith. Simply because I know that I am sinful and that Jesus Christ will save me and I believe it, that does not mean that I am being saved. If I believe that Jesus Christ is necessary and that faith in Him is necessary, yet I do not allow His grace to work in me by cooperating with His Will (and the grace to do so is itself His gift, so that all is grace), then I do not allow Jesus Christ to transform me, to save me. Again, for Catholics, salvation is much more than a change of legal status before God. It is not sufficient for me to remain a sinful man to enter heaven. Indeed, I cannot (Rev 21:27). For man to enter heaven, heaven must enter the very heart of man. So too, like exercise, living out the faith changes a man. Exercising the faith, taking steps out of our boats and onto the water, having hope that God will not let us drown and so having the strength to do great things, our faith grows stronger, and we as persons grow stronger. Our character develops. Our abilities to believe, to hope, and to love grow stronger. In short, we become saints. 6. The parable of the Vine and the Branches is rather helpful here. Just as Christ is the vine, and just as the branches, bound and conformed to Him, bear His fruit, so the faithful bear Christ's own fruit in them. They co-operate in His work of faith, and so share in His fruit. Mankind has a share in the task of his own redemption, to the degree that he co-operates with God. "The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if only we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him" (Romans 8:16-17). Those who co-operate with Christ come to be co-heirs with Him. This is made possible because the faithful are joined to Him: "are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? ...If, then, we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him" (Romans 6:3, 8). Because the faithful are joined to Christ, He lives in them and works in them to the degree they allow (through co-operation): "I have been crucified with Christ; yet I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me; insofar as I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God who has loved me and given himself up for me" (Galatians 2:19-20). This is the connection between conversion and justification. As a person turns toward Christ (converts), he is drawn closer to Christ. By being baptized into Him, that person is bound to Him in such a way that they are living one life, each in the other. Conversion is an approach toward not only identity but unity with Christ, so that the same salvation Christ received from death, those who are joined to Him may also receive, and thus be justified. To the degree, therefore, that a person is converted to Christ, that person is justified in increasing degrees of perfection, although salvation is contingent (by the mercy of God) upon only the smallest degree of justification or grace in the soul. It is clear from this view what the connection between conversion and justification means for soteriological legalism. There cannot be salvation without justification, nor can there be justification without conversion, and conversion consists of turning to Jesus Christ and bearing one's cross, that is, living out God's will in love. 7. The Catholic view of justification may be summed up in this way: God, who wishes to restore man to his proper place as beloved son, chose in His infinite love and mercy to call man to Himself, sacrificing His own Son for all men, so that those who accept His grace by responding through love in faith, which is to co-operate with God in participation with His divine will, may become justified, restored not only in name and status, but in the very depth of their being, transformed into the image and likeness of Christ, truly just creatures, sons of God, and saints. Storm, it's your turn. I recommend not using all 10 paragraphs to start, lest I have to respond with more than one paragraph for each of your paragraphs and we have paragraph proliferation all over the thread. Perhaps one issue at a time? God bless, Raphael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormstopper Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 [font="Arial"][size="2"][b][size="4"]REBUTTAL #1[/size][/b][/size][/font][b][font="Arial"][size="4"][/size][/font][/b][b][font="Arial"][size="4"][/size][/font][/b][b][font="Arial"][size="4"][/size][/font][/b][b][font="Arial"][size="4"][/size][/font][/b][b][font="Arial"][size="4"][/size][/font][/b][b][font="Arial"][size="4"][/size][/font][/b][b][font="Arial"][size="4"][/size][/font][/b][b][font="Arial"][size="4"][/size][/font][/b][b][font="Arial"][size="4"][/size][/font][/b][b][font="Arial"][size="4"][/size][/font][/b][b][font="Arial"][size="4"][/size][/font][/b][b][font="Arial"][size="4"][/size][/font][/b][b][font="Arial"][size="4"][/size][/font][/b] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]The letter "P" will designate either mine or my opponent's "paragraph".[/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font] [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]1) Raphael tells us in P-2, that[font="Times New Roman"][size="3"][color="#000000"] "[/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font]Righteousness is not merely imputed, as Protestants argue, for that would be for God to call something unclean clean. Rather, when God calls something unclean clean, it truly becomes clean..." [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]Answer: First of all, the Roman Catholic Church already admits that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer (opening statement, P-5) albeit only "partly", so if my opponent disagrees with his own church about calling something "unclean, clean", [i]which they do,[/i] then I advise he a write a letter to the Vatican voicing his discontent and maybe they will decide to overturn 500 years of "infallible" history just for him. In any case, contrary to Trent which said that we are "[u]made[/u] just" in actual fact (Session 6, #3 & 7), Justification does not mean to literally make a believer clean or righteous as an empirical reality, but it does mean to reckon or [i]account[/i] the sinner as righteous, even though at the time of the declaration, he is not. The Lord does this for the new believer [u]before[/u] he has been sanctified by the Holy Spirit; for as the Scripture says, [i]"God[/i] [i]justifies the ungodly"[/i] (Rms 4:5). Paul illustrates this from the experience of Abraham, saying that he became a father of many nations as a result of God who quickens the dead and who [u]calls those things which be not, as though they were[/u] (Rms 4:17). Hence, God did not pronounce Abraham a father [i]after[/i] Isaac was born, but while Sarah was still barren, whose "dead womb He quickened". By faith, Abraham accepted he was a father because God said so, rather than by empirical reality. In the same way, we are to believe God when he tells us that we have been reckoned righteous "in Christ"---just as staggering for us to believe as Abraham staggered at the thought of bearing children in his old age. Therefore, in justification, God calls those things which be not, as though they were. [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]Witness Leah and Rachel concerning their father Laban: "Are we not reckoned by him as foreigners?" (Gen 31:15). L & R say that Laban reckons/accounts them to be strangers, when in fact they are his daughters. Witness Numbers 18:27: "Your offering shall be reckoned to you as the grain of the threshing floor and as the fullness of the winepress". The Levite's tithe is reckoned/accounted as the threshing floor corn and the fullness of the winepress though it is neither of these things. And so it must be that God justifies the ungodly even [u]before[/u] the fruit of a new life is seen. They are counted or [i]reckoned[/i] as righteous as per Romans 4:5, even though they are not. Remember the parable of the prodigal son. The grace of his father was looking for him (Luke 15:20)---and discovered the boy while he was still in his filthy rags as a result of eating with pigs! He embraced his son with the stench of a pigpen, and THEN put the "robe of righteousness" on him. He DID NOT, (to speak in Catholic terms) wait for the son to first clean himself up to "justify him by his grace-produced good works", but put the "robe of righteousness" on him right there, [i]on the spot [/i](Luke 15:22). [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font] [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]2) The foundational error of the Roman Catholic Church consists in the idea that the sin of Adam was [u][i]transfused[/i][/u] to his progeny (Trent, Session 5, #3) and that the sinner can now be justified by having righteousness [i][u]transfused[/u][/i] into [i]him![/i] (ibid, Session 6, #16). Sadly, they are committing the same mistake as Adam & Eve. Our first parents had bypassed all the other trees, but went to the tree in the midst of the garden which was off-limits, thinking that by eating the fruit thereon, they would become wise. In like manner, Roman Catholics are bypassing the "Justification Tree", and instead are picking fruit off the "Sanctification Tree", and once the nutrients of this fruit are digested and [i]infused [/i]into their persons, they attempt to present their "renovated souls" as the [u]means[/u] of their justification. But this attempt is doomed to failure. For just as A & E failed in trying to hide their guilt behind a few fig leaves, so too will the Roman Catholic fail in trying to present their renovated soul as that which justifies them on Judgment Day. It simply will never work because the way in which Roman Catholicism defines the [u]ground[/u] of our condemnation is all wrong (per my opening statement P-1, which subsequently makes their defintion of justification equally as wrong). They say it is the inherent sinfulness [i]transfused[/i] into us from Adam and the residual "concupiscence" or incentive to sin which condemns us (Trent, Session 5, #2 & 5). This is theo-illogical because:[/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]A) As a result of Adam's sin, "death passed upon all men, because [note] all have sinned" (Romans 5:12). [i]But, [/i]the fact is, [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]B) [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]"For until the Law [of Moses], sin [u]was[/u] in the world, but [u]sin is not imputed when there is no law[/u] (vs. 13). [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]So Paul concedes that personal sin was prevalent in the world before the Mosaic Law, but sin was not imputed (not counted, nor punished) when there is no law.[/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]C) Nevertheless, the sentence of death was passed on even to those who did [u]not[/u] sin in the same way Adam did (vs. 14). So they died too, even without seeing or knowing any divine law and choosing to sin against it. Why then did they die?[/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]D) The [i]"because all have sinned" [/i]of verse 12 gives us the answer. [i] [/i]God's curse of universal human death was [u]not[/u] owing to individual lawbreaking because there was no explicit law with an attached death penalty. Ergo, their personal sins were not counted when God issued to Adam the ulitmatum that in the day you eat of it, you shall surely die When [u]he[/u] disobeyed, [u]all[/u] sinned [i][color="#ff0000"]in Adam[/color] [/i]according to 1 Cor 15:22. In other words, without their personal sins imputed to them as a result of there being no law laid down (Rms 5:13), they [u]must[/u] have died because [i][u]the sin of Adam[/u] [/i]was imputed to them--- and [u]not[/u] because of their inherent sinfulness according to Trent. [i] [/i]"Because all have sinned" means that all sinned in union with him even before they were born: [i]"By the offence of [u]one[/u], judgment came upon [u]all[/u] men to condemnation [/i](Rms 5:18). [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]Ipso facto, our personal, individual transgressions are [u]not[/u] imputed or counted against us in the verdict of man's condemnation. Ditto in the verdict of Justification. Grace-produced good works are [u]not[/u] counted in our favor either; it is [u]Another's[/u] righteousness, just as it was another's sin, which is imputed to us.[i] [/i]We are no longer "in Adam", but [i][color="#ff0000"]"IN CHRIST"[/color][/i] (1 John 2:5; 3:24, Rms 3:24, 8:1, 8:39; Eph 1:3, 2:13, 3:11-12; Phil 3:9, 14, 4:19; 1 Tim 3:13, 2 Tim 1:1, 1:9, 1:13, 2:1, 2:10, 3:15, 1 Cor 1:2, 1:30, Col 1:28, 2:6; 1 Thess 1:1, 2:14, 1 Peter 5:14). [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font] [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]3) A tremendous illustration of the justification of sinners by the pure mercy of God without works, is found in Ezekiel 16. Speaking of Jersalem's "nativity", He says, [i]"in the day thou wast born, thy navel was not cut, neither was thou washed in water to supple thee; thou was not salted at all, nor swaddled at all. No eye pitied thee, to do any of these things unto thee, to have compassion upon thee; but thou wast cast out in the open field. And when I passed by thee and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee, 'Live.....Now when I passed by thee, behold, thy time was the time of love, and I spread my skirt over thee and covered thy nakedness...and thou becamest mine. Then I washed thee with water; yea, I thoroughly washed away thy blood from thee and I annointed thee with oil." [/i]My point is that sanctification is once again seen as [u]consequential[/u] to justification. "Being justified [u]freely[/u] by His grace" per Romans 3:24, means just that; [i]free. [/i]When we are yet "unwashed, unswaddled, unsalted" and nothing but "bloody sinners", the Lord comes along and covers us with the "skirt" of his glorious righteousness (i.e. justification) and only afterwards, anoints us with the oil of the Holy Spirit (i.e. sanctification). And still yet another example is Jesus forgiving and healing the sick of the palsy: "Son, thy sins be forgiven thee" (Mk 2:5-12). The sick man's physical restoration (not interior [i]renovation[/i]) was the sign of the righteousness he had by faith. The story shows that forgiveness and consequent regeneration (i.e., justification, and sanctification following) are never to be separated, but they must not be confused. First the palsied man was forgiven (justification); [i]then [/i]he was restored to the vigor of a new life (sanctification).[/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font] [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]4) The "tent of the congregation" (Ex 39:32) was the place where the Israelites assembled for worship. As the repentent Hebrew stepped through the door of the court and into the enclosure of the sanctuary, he found himself surrounded on all sides by white linen curtains. White linen is the emblem of righteousness (Rev 19:8) and was a standing testimony not only to the holiness of Him whose dwelling it was, but also typifies the righteousness of Christ, as I mentioned in my opening P-5. This illustrates that the moment the sinner walks through the door ([i]"I am the door; by ME, if any man enter in, he shall be saved" ...Jn 10:9)----[/i]a robe of righteousness surrounds them, "ready to wear" so to speak. It is significant that the first object to meet their eyes upon entry, was a glowing witness to both the justice and free grace of God. The atoning altar and the cleansing laver were [u]inside[/u] the court. Sinners must [u]first[/u] be justified by Christ before proceeding any further. Thus, if God wanted to typify that we must [u]first[/u] be cleansed before going through Him who is "The Door", He would have instructed Moses to put the altar and laver [u]outside[/u] the court. Unfortunately, this is precisely what Catholicism is advocating when they demand men must experience regeneration [i]before [/i]God can cover them with His righteousness. They state: [i]"Justification...cannot be effected without [/i][first!] [i]the laver of regeneration" [/i](Trent, Session 5 & 6, #4). The gospel entails God forgiving [i]sinners---[/i]not those who consider themselves [i]saints. [/i]"I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Matt 9:13).[/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font] [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]5) Raphael says in P-2 that, [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][font="Times New Roman"][size="3"][color="#000000"]"The sacrifice of animals for sin is hinted at as early as Genesis 3, and the covering over shame with the hide of animals symbolized even from the earliest times the covering of sin by the merit of a sacrifice." [size="2"][color="#008000"] [font="Comic Sans MS"]More accurately, it should be stated that it was the [u]imputation[/u] of ours sins to the animal which was the occasion for our iniquities being removed. [i]"And Aaron shall lay both hands upon the head of the live goat, and shall confess all [their] iniquities....putting them upon the head of the goat." [/i](Lev 16:21-23).[i] [/i]There is no other way, other than by [u]imputation[/u], that this was accomplished, and it was likewise with Christ, unto whom the Lord imputed our sins, [i]"laying on Him the iniquity of us all." [/i](Isa 53:6). Raphael also says, [/font][/color][/size][/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][font="Times New Roman"][size="3"][color="#000000"]"nor can the simple covering[size="2"] [font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"][but he means, 'nor can the simple imputation of our sins to Christ] [/color][/font][/size]bring about salvation' ". [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]On the contrary, the imputation of our sins to Christ and conversely, the imputation of His righteousness to us, MOST DEFINITELY brings about salvation. We will continue to demonstrate that justification is found in the objective and [i]external[/i], rather than subjective and [i]internal. [/i] He then goes on,[/color][/size][/font][i] "[/i][/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][font="Times New Roman"][size="3"][color="#000000"][i]Salvation is not only about getting man into heaven, but about getting heaven into man!". [/i][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]However, the way in which the Roman Catholic Church hopes to go about "getting heaven into man", is by [u]infusing the righteousness of Christ into our very persons, each one according to his own measure[/u] (Trent, Session 6, #16 & 7). This is impossible. The righteousness of Christ belongs exclusively to Him and is an objective reality [i]outside[/i] of us! It is entirely beyond the realm of the senses and it most certainly is not some sort of metaphysical substance that can be [i]infused into our bodies [/i]like a flu shot---nor can it be distributed in increments. The robe of righteousness is given WHOLE and ENTIRE (my opening, P-5) "without spot or wrinkle" (Eph 5:27). The Bible will not tolerate such pious-sounding fairy tales such as [i]"continually infusing His virtue into the justified" [/i](ibid, Trent). But it [u]will[/u] tolerate the doctrine of an external righteousness that is [u]imputed[/u][/color][/size][/font][i] [/i][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]to us by faith.[/color][/size][/font][i] [/i][/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][font="Arial"][size="2"][color="#000000"] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][font="Arial"][size="2"][color="#000000"][/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font] [/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][font="Times New Roman"][size="3"][color="#000000"][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]6) The Scriptures elucidate quite clearly on the concept of imputation in which the acts and decisions of one's representative are viewed and treated as being one's OWN acts and decisions. We noticed this with the animal sacrifies above and in my comments on Christ as Surety (opening statement, P-4). In a secular sense, if our reps declare war, it means WE are viewed and treated as having declared war. If they vote in a new tax, we have to pay as if WE voted it in ourselves. In biblical scenarios, Pharaoh's stubborness led to God's judgment on the entire nation (Ex 7-11). Those who followed Korah, Dathan and Abiram suffered their fate as well (Num 16). Each evil king brought catastrophe on the entire nation, regardless of how many were innocent in the vicinity. For instance, Israel had no rain because of the evil deeds of Ahab (1 Kings 18:18). And conversely, the good actions of kings, such as Hezekiah, brought blessing to the nation. Too, when Paul wrote to Philemon, he said if Onesimus owed him anything, "put that to my account" (Philemon 1:18). In other words, [i]impute that to me! [/i]The greatest lesson of representative imputation though, is the substitutionary atonemenment of the Lord Jesus Christ. [i]We are saved by the actions and decisions of someone else---who stood in our place as punishment-bearer and law keeper. [/i]The concept of imputation, wherein God takes the life and works of someone else, and applies them to the record of another---who is then treated on that basis, is thoroughly rational in both a secular and religious sense. Adam's sin is imputed [i](not transfused) [/i]to us at conception. Our sin was imputed [i](not transfused)[/i] to Christ in the atonement. And the righteousness of Christ is imputed [i](not transfused) [/i]to us in justification.[/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font] [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]7) Raphael's opening statement was answered in my O.S., P-1. [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]His P-3 is covered in my P-6. [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] [/color][/size][/font] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]His P-4 is covered in my P-7 & 9. [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]His P-5 is covered in my P-1 & 7. [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] His P-6 is covered in my P-5. [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]His P-7 is covered in my P-8 & 9.[/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font] [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]8) My opponent's opening statement was simply DRENCHED with wanton assertions that salvation is contingent on the will of man and his "co-operation"---something I DO NOT see emphasized in the New Testament in any way similar as put forth in his paper. He says, salvation is "cooperation between God's grace and man's freedom" (P-4); "We must [u]allow[/u] His grace to work in us" (P-5); "He works in us to the degree we [u]allow[/u]" (P-6). I do not believe for a moment that the reason Jesus Christ came into this world is so that we might "give Him permission" to do ANYTHING. "Hath not the Potter power over the clay? Shall the thing formed, question Him who forms it? (Rms 9:21). Of course not. And that's because, "the king's heart is in the hand of the Lord; as are the rivers of water; He turneth it withersoever He will" (Prov 21:1). All I will say here is that man's co-operation along with the Spirit working within us, have no power to satisfy the demands of God's justice (propitiation). Hence, these virtues are antagonistic to justification. Scripture tells us that, [i]He saved us....not according to our works [or cooperation] but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given to us in Christ Jesus BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN." [/i](2 Tim 1:9). Or, as we read elsewhere, [i]"before the children were even born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand--not of works, [/i][He said] [i]Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" [/i](Rms 9:11). Thus, since we were "ordained to eternal life" (Acts 13:48) by His [u]grace-produced[/u] sovereign decree before we had not yet even come into existance, this means that our [u]grace-produced good works cannot factor into the equation of our justification![/u] Roman Catholicsm talks a lot about grace, but they are guilty of "frustrating the grace of God" (Gal 2:21). Instead of resting in the promise of [i]"being justified freely by His grace"[/i] per Romans 3:24, Rome offers a salvation based on works that [u]come[/u] from grace. Granted, good works may prove the grace of God is at hand, [u]but they cannot be identified with it in the verdict of our justification because the grace of God chose His elect before they were even born and had not yet produced even one good work.[/u] [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]My rock of confidence is placed entirely on the obedience and cooperation of Another! "BY THE OBEDIENCE OF THE [u]ONE[/u], MANY WILL BE APPOINTED/MADE/RECKONED OR IMPUTED AS RIGHTEOUS" per Romans 5:19. [i]"God forbid that I should glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" [/i]and bask in any way, shape or form in the alleged merits of my co-operation which would leave room for boasting throughout eternity (Gal 6:14, Rms 3:27, Eph 2:9). As I have labored to show, the focus of our salvation [u]must[/u] be outside of ourselves and away with the sinking sand of our so-called "co-operation". [i]"Rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh" [/i](Phil 3:3).[/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][font="Arial"][size="2"][color="#000000"][/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="2"] [font="Arial"][size="2"][/size][/font][/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="2"]End.[/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][font="Arial"][size="2"][color="#000000"][/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][font="Arial"][size="2"][color="#000000"][/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][font="Arial"][size="2"][color="#000000"][/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][font="Arial"][size="2"][color="#000000"][/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted October 9, 2009 Author Share Posted October 9, 2009 First, let me begin by saying that I finish this post at the end of a long week wherein I have been offered a new job, dealt with a dying grandfather and an aunt who wanted to Kevorkian him, and finally the death of that grandfather this morning. So, that said, my argument follows. Edited to add: I'd also like to point out that I live in the Central Time Zone, so it's 11:23pm where I am, still Thursday. While the Council of Trent does indeed express the Catholic belief that a theology of justification based on the sole imputation of righteousness is incorrect, my opponent is misunderstanding my point. When I discuss the imputed righteousness view of Protestantism, I am not saying that there isn't any accuracy at all about it, but that the view known as imputed righteousness, which believes in sole imputation, is wrong, which is precisely what Trent said. So I agree with Trent. I also hold that Trent's meaning was that God does not call the unclean clean, but transforms the unclean into something clean. At the very least, God's Word, which formed the world, has the power to transform the hearts of men. Regarding Romans 4:5, to say that God justifies the ungodly does not mean that God calls the ungodly just, but that God actually justifies the ungodly (which is precisely what the verse says), transforming them by His grace from ungodly men to just men. This quote does not disprove my case. Regarding Abraham, God called Abraham only what he would be. God only told him that He had destined him to be a father, the father of many nations. This miscommunication may be the fault of our differing translations. Mine says, "who gives life to the dead and calls into being what does not exist" (Romans 4:17). After checking the Greek, I see the reason for this miscommunication. It is likely that the Catholic translation takes into account an idiom of Greek and translates less literally. Anyway, the Catholic translation of the verse shows us again the implication that God's Word has the power to transform. He did not call something that wasn't by another name, but instead calls into being according to His will. Also, it is important to see that nowhere do these verses my opponent cites as support for his theology even relate to the topic of justification. Even if it could be said that God "calls those things which be not, as though they were," it's jumping to conclusions to say that this is how He justifies. Regarding the Parable of the Prodigal Son, I detect a straw man fallacy. The Catholic interpretation would not be that the father should have waited until the son cleaned himself (that would be a variation on the familiar heresy of Pelagianism), since the grace of God is itself that which cleans. The Catholic interpretation instead would be that the whole process began with the response of the son to prevenient grace (that grace which "goes before" conversion), whereby the son repented and left the pigsty to return to his father. In reality, God calls us to this by His prevenient grace. The moment of initial justification began with the father's clothing the son, but surely we must not be led to believe that the son, once clothed, did not continue to wash up and prepare for the meal. Justification is a process, not a one-time event. No one could claim that the father called his son completely clean when he put the robe on him, but he did begin the process of cleaning his son, and so his decrees concerning the honoring of his son could be considered akin to the Father's calling the newly baptized "clean," not a declaration of legal status or sole imputation, but a transformative beginning to justification. My opponent's second paragraph has yet another straw man, claiming that Catholics confuse sanctification for justification. The difficulty here lies in the fact that Protestant theology does not see justification as an actual transformation of man. Again, the word "justification" literally means "the act of making just." A just man is holy (sanctus), and therefore it is fundamentally wrong to separate justification from sanctification. The idea that the two could be separated is foreign to Scriptures and foreign to the first millennium and a half of Christian theology, however, it is clear that they are different aspects of the same transformation. Regarding original sin, which my opponent cites without calling it by name, it is entirely Scriptural that the sin of Adam affected human nature. On account of that sin, all humanity was born outside of paradise and all mankind has had the tendency to sin. This, however, is a different matter and a different debate. My opponent argues that in the way all were found guilty because one man (Adam) sinned even though they didn't sin, so all are found righteous because one man (Jesus) was righteous, even though those individuals were not righteous. The problem with this view is that while all humankind sinned in Adam (this may be found in Catholic teaching as well), there is no evidence in the Scriptures that this involvement in the sin of Adam was confined merely to imputed guilt. Nowhere does my opponent show why it is allegedly unscriptural to say that mankind actually fell and became unjust after the Fall, or, as he puts it, that sin was transfused into the rest of the human race. For him, it is all about God's falling into the trap of guilt by association and righteousness by association as well. For my opponent, personal sins do not count, but only the guilt of being the same type of creature as Adam. The problem with that is that we know God views us honestly, as we really are (cf. 1 Sam 16:7). If we were not actually affected by Adam's sin, if the sin of our first parents did not affect our nature and incline us toward sin (rather than just making us guilty by association), then God who sees the heart would condemn none of us. No, God says that we are sinful because we are. God is honest. My opponent's third paragraph involves a bit of smoke and mirrors. First, mention is made of a beautiful biblical passage in such a way as to suggest that Catholic theology is somehow against it. However, the verse has nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph. The verse only seems to have meaning when eisegesis is applied to it. Somehow, being covered with a skirt means "justification" and being anointed means "sanctification." Who decided upon this interpretation? Second, mention is made of a Biblical miracle in a way so as to suggest that righteousness comes before sanctification because righteousness comes before physical healing; "First the palsied man was forgiven (justification); then he was restored to the vigor of a new life (sanctification)." However, the verse never says that the man was first forgiven and then at a later moment was healed. Indeed, it would be equally if not more valid to consider that the man was forgiven and healed simultaneously. Interestingly enough, my opponent has stumbled across an excellent defense of another aspect of Catholic justification theology: the mercy of God heals. Only within the Catholic worldview where sin damages the nature of man can God's forgiveness heal the wounds of sin, rather than just cover over them. Only if mankind has been damaged by sin can mankind be healed by grace. Because justice is defined as giving one's dues and a man owes to himself and to God his entire nature, whole and undamaged, with dignity and perfection, then the healing of grace and the process of sanctification must be a part of justification. As man is made more just, he must become more sanctified. The two are aspects of the same process, the salvation of man by the transforming grace of God. Regarding my opponent's fourth paragraph, I am trying desperately to find where the Council of Trent stuck the word "first" in the quote as my opponent did. Bad show (and another straw man fallacy). You can't just support your argument by inserting words of your own choosing into Church statements. Regeneration comes at the moment of Baptism (represented by the "laver or regeneration") not after Baptism. That having been said, like any process, it takes time. Regarding the Old Testament prefigurement, it is precisely that, a prefigurement. It need not be a complete parallel with the Gospel. The point of the prefigurement could have ended with the fact that all these elements were related. It's quite speculative to take such a strict line on interpretation as to rule out any and every other interpretation that doesn't jive with what we want to see. More smoke and mirrors in my opponents fifth paragraph. He claims that Catholics have a view of justification relying on the internal and subjective, while he relies on the external and objective. This is incorrect. The Catholic view of justification encompasses the internal and the external, the subjective and the objective. That salvation and justice which is Christ's becomes ours, because He lives in us (Gal 2:20). I need not say any more until my opponent addresses this verse. How does Christ live in us and yet we do not share in His justice? How is Christ's living in us not transforming our lives? Imputation is indeed a strong theme in the Scriptures, but the fact of the matter is that Christ died for me and His sacrifice may be imputed to me, but it cannot be done without my choosing for it to be done, and my choice is not one that can merely be a statement of my belief, but that it must be faith-lived-out. There is a strong reliance in Protestant soteriology on the Old Testament, literally, the Old Covenant, a covenant deemed in Scripture itself to be insufficient to save man. It is this Old Covenant which relies on the notion of imputed righteousness. Let's come out of the Old Covenant and start looking at the new. My opponent ends by asserting that God saves people against their will, that is, that cooperation with grace is not necessary. He then goes on to accuse Catholicism of believing that works, not faith, save. I answered this in my opening statement. I don't really have the time to waste on repeating myself. I recommend we stick with one part of justification at a time. Let's try this...how about you pick one of these sub-topics and we'll work from there: 1) Imputed Vs. Infused Righteousness, 2) Faith & Works, 3) The Distinction between Justification and Sanctification, 4) What Trent was Actually Saying. I've found several strawman arguments, a blatant alteration of the text of the Council of Trent, and a lot of loaded word arguments in your posts. I'm just saying maybe the debate should be more focused. If you want to accomplish some sort of mutual understanding, take my offer. If you just want to keep heaving assaults at me without seeming to know what you're talking about regarding Catholic teaching, continue as you have been. God bless, Raphael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormstopper Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 (edited) [font="Arial"][size="2"][font="Arial Black"]REBUTTAL #2[/font] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]1) Raphael ends his post with a slap on my wrist which I don't think I deserved, so I will respond accordingly. He says that my last two submissions have consisted of [i][color="#000000"]"a lot of loaded word arguments." [/color][/i][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]Nevertheless, my conscience is clear. I have stayed within the guidelines we agreed upon, so I will not apologize for utilizing the freedom given to me as I see fit. If my arguments are "loaded", I consider that a badge of honor. In the next breath, I am accused of, [i][color="#000000"]"heaving assaults at me without seeming to know what you're talking about". [/color][/i] Excuse me? [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]I was challenged to this debate based on a completely erroneous comprehension of Protestant soteriology---which is why I accepted. I exposed the fact that [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]he had completely misrepresented Luther, and by implication, the entire Protestant ethic, by stating that the Reformer thought [i]"faith saves regardless of whether that faith is lived out." [/i] Unbelievably, he reasserts this same fallacy as if I denied it, in his first rebuttal, P-6! ([font="Verdana"][color="#000000"]"it must be faith lived out").[font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"] [/color][/font][/color][/font]Who in Protestant history has ever said our faith must [u]not[/u] be lived out? That is the polar [u]opposite[/u] of what I believe and one will notice that he did not furnish a single quote from anyone to prove otherwise. So unless he graciously concedes to change his mind, [u]he[/u] will be the one found guilty of not knowing what he's talking about. I submit the so-called [i]"heaving[/i] [i]assaults" [/i]complaint[i] [/i]is overexaggerating and out of order because after all, this is a debate! I am adamentally opposed to the Roman Catholic view of Justification and I am not about to act like Tinkerbell and shower the Roman position with confetti. [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]God allows [i]"heresies to arise so that they which are approved among you may be made manifest" [/i](1 Cor 11:19, 1 Kings 18:24). Let the audience decide which argument is "manifestly approved." I am staying within the bounds of protocol---but let's be honest. I can easily accuse him of assaulting me by what [u]he's[/u] written. In any case, I don't agree in narrowing down our focus to one issue---as was suggested. I have already capitulated to the request of not using all ten paragraphs, s[/color][/size][size="2"][color="#008000"]o I say let the preponderance of evidence speak for itself and let the reader judge who has made the best use of their space limitations.[/color][/size][/font][font="Verdana"][size="2"][/size][/font] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]2) In one instance, I am asked, [color="#000000"][i]"who decided for this particular interpretation of Scripture?".[/i][/color][color="#008000"] [/color][color="#000000"][i] [/i][color="#008000"]Should this same objection come up later, let's nip it in the bud right now. My interpretation comes from reliable "scripture scholars". . . just like the Catholic Church advises we all refer to. Roman Catholicsm has officially left 98% of the Bible [u]uninterpreted.[/u] It is no wonder then that [i]"Catholic Answers",[/i] that most notorious Romanist website, tells us this: "the church has never undertaken the composition of an official Bible commentary. The project would involve a massive expenditure of her resources when there is simply no pressing need to do so. It is much simpler to adopt the approach. . . to allow Scripture scholars liberty to interpret any Bible passage in whatever way they feel the evidence best supports, provided certain minimal boundaries are met." And so there you have it. Unlike the Catholic Church, Protestant "scripture scholars" have happily sacrificed themselves to produce Bible commentaries[/color][i] [/i][color="#008000"]to the blessings of untold millions, and so if the Roman Catholic course of action is acceptable to Raphael, he should also allow me the same liberty. [/color][/color][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][size="2"][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][size="2"][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"][/color][/font][/size][/color][/size][/font] 3) It is said of me, [font="Verdana"][color="#000000"]"[/color][/font][/color][/font][/size][font="Verdana"][size="2"][color="#000000"]Regarding my opponent's fourth paragraph, I am trying desperately to find where the Council of Trent stuck the word "first" in the quote as my opponent did. Bad show (and another straw man fallacy). You can't just support your argument by inserting words of your own choosing into Church statements. Regeneration comes at the moment of Baptism (represented by the "laver or regeneration") not after Baptism."[/color][/size][/font][size="2"][font="Verdana"] [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]To begin with, if Roman Catholic theology supports that one must "first" go through the laver of regeneration to be justified, then the word I inserted into the text is allowable. Jesus did not add to the Scripture, "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God and shalt serve Him (Deut 6:13), when He said, "It is written, 'Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him [u]only[/u] shalt thou serve'" (Matt 4:10). The word "only" is not in the letter of the text, but is in the sense of it---as the last two popes agreed on Romans 3:28 (opening, P-6). I wrote that Roman Catholicism teaches "Justification cannot be effected without [first] the laver of regeneration" (baptism). This was said in opposition to the Israelite walking through the door of the court and [u]first[/u] being confronted with the rightousness of Christ typified by the surrounding white linen curtains, and [i]then [/i]washing. My point was that Rome ruins this typology if she says "baptism first, then justification", whereas Scripture reverses the order (see P-4 below). [/color][/font][/size][size="2"][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]The Catechism describes baptism as "the gateway" and "the door" which gives access to the righteousness of God [i]infused, [/i]and an "entry" into the life of the faith which I say naturally indicates must [u]first[/u] be experienced before Justification can be effected (#1213, 1236, 1239). You obviously have to walk through a door [i]first [/i]to get to the benefit on the other side--- and Catholicism teaches you cannot be justified [u]unless[/u] you are baptized, so my conclusion was logical. It is fruitless to argue whether the blessing occurs the [i]moment [/i]the water touches the forehead, [i]during[/i] the priest's incantation, or [i]after[/i] the ritual is over. The point is that in the order of salvation, [/color][/font][/size][size="2"][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]Jesus says [u]He[/u] is the door [i]and[/i] the "entry way" ---"if anyone enter by ME, he shall be saved" (Jn 10:8; 14:6). The Bible is relentless that a man is justified by walking through the door of FAITH to be saved (Rms 3:28, 30; 4:5; 5:1) and [u]not[/u] baptism---contra CCC #1428 which says by baptism, one [i]gains salvation. [/i]Nonsense. To further confirm my point, in similar fashion, Catholic theology teaches justification cannot be effected without FIRST producing good works before one can be justified in baptism! [/color][/font][/size][size="2"][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"] The catechumenate (adult baptism candidate) must FIRST "practice evangelical virtues" (CCC #1248), and this is verified by one typical on-line RCIA manual entitled, "Purification and Preparation": Getting Ready for Rebirth!"---with[font="Verdana"] [/font]prerequisites such as "supernatural good deeds"---consequently confirmed in "The Rites of the Catholic Church", vol 1, p. 71. "Good deeds in preparartion for rebirth" is nothing less than rank heresy. My friendly Catholic adversary says, [font="Verdana"][color="#000000"]"[/color][/font][/color][/font][/size][size="2"][font="Verdana"][color="#000000"]Protestant theology does not see justification as an actual transformation of man." [font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]Correct. And that is because as I stated in my opening[/color][/font][/color][/font][/size][size="2"] P-1, Justification is a legal or forensic term where a [u]declaration[/u] or verdict of righteousness is in view, indicating a change in [i]status[/i] rather than in [i]nature.[/i] It does [u]not[/u] mean to make a person subjectively righteous, any more than a verdict of condemnation means to make a person subjectively wicked (Deut 25:1, Prov 17:15; Job 40:8; Isa 5:23; 1 Kings 8:32; Rms 8:33-34). [/size][size="2"]Instead, he just affirms the opposite with no proof whatsoever, saying, [font="Verdana"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][/size][font="Verdana"][color="#000000"]"justification literally means the act of making just." (P-2). [/color][/font][size="2"] I am not impressed. [/size][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][color="#000000"][color="#008000"][/color][/color][/color][/size][/font] [size="2"][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]4) Catholicism says baptism causes regeneration. [i]"Through baptism, we are freed from sin and [u]reborn[/u] as sons of God....and become a temple of the Holy Spirit" [/i](CCC #1213, 1265). The Bible will not permit being born again via baptism. The [u]means[/u] God uses to grant new birth, "making us alive together in Christ" where there was no life before, is the GOSPEL ("being [i][u]born again[/u] [/i]by the word of God...it pleased Him by the foolishness of [u]preaching[/u] to save them that believe".... 1 Pet 1 :23, 1 Cor 1:21). This involves calling dead men out of the grave unto new life as He did Lazarus. Simon the magician was baptized, but that didn't change him a bit (Acts 8:13/8:23). Furthermore, practical experience denies baptismal regeneration. Millions of Catholics, not to mention popes, have been baptized and end up living like monsters. [i]Catholic Answers[/i] even confirms Hitler was a validly baptised Catholic ([url="http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=1084106"]http://forums.cathol...d.php?p=1084106[/url]). [/color][/font][/size][size="2"][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]Hence, the claim that water baptism makes us "children of God" is absolutely absurd (CCC #1250). Jesus said being [u]born[/u] of the Spirit was the prerogative OF the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:8), who is like the wind, acting arbitrarily and as a free agent, dispensing His influence where, when and on whom He pleases. Ergo, man [/color][/font][/size][size="2"][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]cannot [u]choose[/u] to make someone God's child via a religious ritual, doubly confirmed in [u]John 1:13.[/u] Notice the word [u]born:[/u] "everyone who practices righteousness has been [i]born[/i] of Him"; "no one who is [i]born [/i]of God makes a practice of sinning"; "whoever loves, has been [i]born [/i]of God"; "everyone who believes Jesus is the Christ has been [i]born [/i]of God" (1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1). These texts show that regenerative grace [u]precedes[/u] faith, and by extention, baptism. In every instance, the verb "born" (gennao) is in the perfect tense, denoting an action that [u]precedes[/u] the human actions of practicing righteousness, avoiding sin, loving others or believing. The order then is NOT that regeneration comes at the moment of baptism and [i]then [/i]we receive the Holy Spirit as alleged above, but rather, God's regenerating grace quickens dead men [u]first[/u] (Jn 6:44, Eph 2:1))--- which results in our disposition towards faith and are justified (Rms 5:1)--- thereupon we recieve the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:2)--- then we are baptized (Acts 10:44-48; 16:15), and consequently, the sanctified life begins. It is simply pitiful that, [i]"the church does not know of any means other than baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude"[/i] (CCC # 1256-57). On the contrary, Paul was sent, "NOT to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (1 Cor 1:17), "which is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes" (Rms 1:16). If baptism was our saftey pin to gain eternal life, Paul would have preached it's necessity [/color][/font][/size][size="2"][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"][u]as part of[/u] the gospel, but he did not! This unambiguous demarcation of "gospel vs. baptism" swings the wrecking ball at the Catechism's false hope. [/color][/font][/size][size="2"][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"] The church at Rome has twisted the good news by [u]confining[/u] our rebirth and reception of the Holy Spirit to ritual [u]baptism [/u](CCC #1238, 1265)---and [u]defining[/u] the "born again" experience as being ritual baptism itself, even in the case of infants who need to be "born again" right after their physical birth (CCC #1250). But this contradicts the truth that Cornelius and company received the Spirit [u]before[/u] they were baptized [i]"by the hearing of faith" [/i](Acts 10:44-48, Gal 3:2)---and infants, of course, are incapable of this. When Jesus told Nicodemus he must be born again, He chided the religious leader for not knowing what He meant. Since Christian baptism had not yet been instituted, He couldn't have meant [i]that! [/i] He was rebuking Nick for not knowing something in the Old Testament. More on this next time. [/color][/font][/size][size="2"][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"][/color][/font][/size][i][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font][/i][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]5) I am told that, [font="Verdana"][color="#000000"]"It is the Old Covenant which relies on the notion of imputed righteousness. Let's come out of the Old and start looking at the New." (P-6). [font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]I must reject this advice. "Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning" (Rms 15:4). The concept of imputation is mentioned [u]numerous[/u] times in both the Old [i]and[/i] the New[i], [/i]while the word "infusion" is mentioned [u]no where[/u] (Lev 7:18; 17:4, 1 Sam 22:15; 2 Sam 19:19, Ps 32:2; Hab 1:11; Rms 4:6, 8, 11, 22, 23, 24; 5:13; Philemon 1:18, 2 Cor 5:19; Jms 2:23). The types and figures used in the Old Testament open up a treasure chest of meaning which illiminates our N.T. theology. We have broken God's law, and just as the law in the ark was covered by the mercy seat, which was a figure of Christ, so our sins against the law are covered when the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us in its entirety. Contra Trent, it [u]must[/u] be by the sole imputation of the merits of Christ. This not only covers our sins, cancels our liability to punishment, presents us with a "righteousness not our own" (Phil 3:9), but solves the problem of His accepting even our tainted good works. An imperfect righteousness, either our own, or that of Christ distributed "piecemeal", cannot and will not stand before the Judge with whom we have to do (Jms 2:10). We must be wearing the garment whole and entire (the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed) which the Host provides us (opening, P-5)---and [u]not[/u] the "garment of immortality" called baptism as stated in CCC #1216. This is foreshadowed in Exodus 28:36-38 by the plate of pure gold (typifying the righteousness of Christ) which was put on Aaron's "hat" engraved with "Holiness to the Lord" so that, [i]"Aaron may bear the [u]iniquity[/u] of the holy things [which are offered by the people] so that they may be accepted." [/i] Paul did [u]many[/u] good works, "laboring with the [u]grace[/u] of God bestowed upon me" (1 Cor 15:10). Though his conscience was clear, he knew that even with those grace-produced good works wrought out in [i]sanctification, [/i]the verdict was still, [/color][/font][/color][/font][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][font="Verdana"][color="#000000"][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]"I AM NOT HEREBY JUSTIFIED" (1 Cor 4:4). God sees the [i]"iniquity even of the holy things", [/i]but we are safe within the robe of Christ's righteousness, showing the pristine obedience He rendered of more value than all the obediences and works of men put together. [i]"I will make mention of thy righteousness, even of thine ONLY." [/i](Ps 71:16). [/color][/font][/color][/font][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]6) My opponent says,[font="Times New Roman"][size="3"][color="#000000"] "T[/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font]he Catholic belief that a theology of justification based on the sole imputation of righteousness is incorrect and my opponent is misunderstanding my point. When I discuss the imputed righteousness view of Protestantism, I am not saying that there isn't any accuracy at all about it, but that the view known as imputed righteousness, which believes in sole imputation, is wrong, which is precisely what Trent said. I also hold that Trent's meaning was that God does not call the unclean clean, but transforms the unclean into something clean". [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]Answer: I understood the point being made the first time around and I still say Raphael is contradicting himself. He has made it clear that Catholicism doesn't like the notion of calling something unclean, clean....without defining what he means by "clean" and then ipso facto, [i]assumes[/i] what he sets out to prove. I will get to that shortly. So he accepts the Protestant view of Christ's righteousness being imputed [u]partially.[/u] Even if you accept 1% (because Rome never says exactly [i]how much [/i]righteousness is imputed--- just that it isn't 100%) you are agreeing with the Protestant view that this declaration involves a change in [i]status[/i] rather than nature. Therefore, holding two opposite positions at the same time is impossible. Needless to say, this nebulous percentage amount of Christ's merit being distributed piecemeal, is unbiblical. Furthermore, when I say that justification entails a change in status, rather than in nature, my opponent simply assumes something I never said; namely that this means calling an unclean person, clean, and he says this would make God dishonest. This is a poor apologetic that proves nothing, because the fact remains that Catholicism believes that even with the righteousness of Christ imputed (to whatever percentage they choose) along with the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit--- it is a fact, the Catholic still has to deal with their own personal sins within the scope of their transformation, just as much as a Protestant. Hence, the insinuation that Catholics are any more "clean" by [i]their[/i] theology than we are, is nothing less than a canard. [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]Regarding the healing of the palsied man which I used to typify the declaration of justification, with sanctification following; my papal proponent said, [/color][/size][/font][font="Verdana"][size="2"]"The verse never says that the man was first forgiven and then at a later moment was healed." [font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]Response: Oh yes it does. (Catholics [i]do[/i] like to have things done in a [i]moment [/i]in time as we saw in P-3 above, don't they?). Anyway, seeing his faith, we read, [first!] "your sins are forgiven" (Matt 9:2). Murmuring from the crowd followed, afterwhich Jesus said He had not only the power to forgive, but to heal. [i]"[u]Then[/u] [/i]said He to the sick of the palsy, Arise, take up thy bed..." (Matt 9:6).[/color][/font][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]7) I am then asked to address Galatians 2:20 where Christ is said to dwell within us, and would not His residency have the power to transform us? Yes. No one denies the nenewal of the inner man by the Holy Spirit. But the point of conflict narrows down to 2 Cor 5:21: [i]"For He hath [u]made[/u] Him to be sin for us...that we might be [u]made[/u] the righteousness of God in Him." [/i]The Catechism says that, "Justification [i]conforms[/i] us to the righteousness of God who makes us inwardly just" [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"](CCC #1992). So they understand the righteousness of God as an [u]inward[/u] righteousness in man. But to refer to the righteousness of God as something [u]within[/u] man is mistaken because it finalizes the conclusion without taking into consideration the comparison. Paul means us to understand that the believer is [i]"made" [/i]the righteousness of God in the same way as Christ was [i]"made"[/i] sin.....and that is by [u]imputation.[/u] It is simply out of the question to say Jesus was "made sin" by the [i]infusion[/i] of sin into His being, thus making Him a sinner. Ergo, it is equally out of the question to speak of the believer being made the righteousness of God by the [i]"infusion of sanctifying grace into the soul" [/i](CCC # 1999). Sin was [i]imputed[/i] to the Divine Victim; it was not IN Him. Likewise, though the righteousness of God is [i]imputed[/i] to the believer, it is not IN Him---it is a [i]gift [/i]([color="#ff0000"]"the free gift of righteousness came upon all unto justification" [/color][color="#008000"].....Rms 5:17-18). As the sin which condemned the elect was OUTSIDE of Christ, so is the justifying righteousness of God OUTSIDE the believer. Hence, we must not tolerate the Roman Catechism when she bids us to believe that, "the way to eternal beatitude is through [i][u]right conduct with the help of God's law[/u][/i]" (#16). NO. "For Christ is [i][u]the end of the law for righteousness[/u][/i] [and right conduct!] to everyone that believes" and, [/color][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] [i]"But now, the righteousness of God [u]without the law[/u] is manifested....which is by faith of Jesus Christ."[/i] (Rms 10:4; 3:21). [i]"If righteousness comes from the law, Christ is dead in vain"[/i] (Gal 2:21). Our Lord's fulfilling of the law [u]IS[/u] our righteousness (Matt 5:17) and thus He is called, "The Lord our Righteousness" (Jer 23:6) and, "Surely, shall one say, in the Lord have I righteousness" (Isa 45:24). Let us not forget that Paul went out of his way to exclude the greatest law system ever given to man as a way to becoming justified (Acts 13:39). It is unthinkable therefore, that the Creator of the universe would substitute some lesser law, like Roman Catholicism, with all [u]her[/u] requirements, canon laws and ultimatums, to stand in its place.[/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font] 8) Another accusation arises: [font="Verdana"][color="#000000"]"It is fundamentally wrong to separate justification from sanctification, and it is foreign to the Scriptures."[/color][/font][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]I deny this. The Bible does make a distinction: "[Jesus] is made unto us righteousness [u]and[/u] sanctification" (1 Cor 1:30). "But ye are sanctified, but ye are justified" (1 Cor 6:11). Holy Writ is unequivocal: None but the [i]doers[/i] of the law will be justified (Rms 2:13), and if we fail in even one point, we are guilty of it all (Jms 2:10). Perfect conformity to the law is the only basis for acceptance with God as Raphael seems to indicate in that we owe God our, [/color][/size][/font][font="Verdana"][size="2"]"entire nature, whole and undamaged, with dignity and perfection" (P-3). [font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]Unfortunately, no can live up to this ideal. T[/color][/font][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]he gospel solution to the dilemma is that the merits of both the life and death of Jesus Christ are [i]imputed[/i] to us (Rms 5:10). The legal aspects of justification are seen in the liberating decree that there is now no condemnation to those in Christ because He has become our "[u]Surety[/u]" --- fulfilling the law and taking it's penalty for non-compliance, [i]in our place [/i](Jn 8:11; Rms 8:1, opening P-4). The soul is now set apart (or sanctified) and free to run the way of God's commandments. Our union with Christ classifies us as "dead men". God considers that when Christ died, we died (Col 3:3). We now have the responsibility to act like dead men to sin (Col 3:5, 9, 2 Cor 7:1). [i]"For he who has died has been [u]justified[/u] from sin [/i]. . .[i]for you are not under law, but under grace." [/i](Rms 6:7, 14). Since we are no longer under the law, we are now justified, in a [u]state of being[/u] (i.e. the "grace wherein we [u]stand[/u]" per Romans 5:2) and must distinguish that from our sanctification which is a [u]state of doing[/u] (i.e. "walking in newness of life" per Romans 6:4). The beauty of sanctification is to get us to realize we are "walking dead men". [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] Sanctification (which is neither judicial [i]or [/i]propitiatory) must [i]constantly[/i] return to our justification (which [i]is[/i] judicial as well as propitiatory) rooted in the merits of Christ alone so we may enter into His REST (Matt 11:28) or one will not escape arriving at an ever-changing, guilt ridden, self-righteousness. [i]"He that has entered into His rest, also has ceased from his own works" [/i]. . . and, "You are [u]complete[/u] in Him" (Heb 4:3, 10, Col 2:10). Another line of demarcation between justification and sanctification is found in 1 Cor 3:13 and following. If the good works of the Christian are done to the glory of God, they will be rewarded. If they have been done with selfish motives, they will be "burned up"---but notice! "HE HIMSELF SHALL BE SAVED". This is proof positive that it was the man's confidence in his [i]justification[/i] that saved him. So whether it be our tarnished works in sanctification for which we will suffer loss, or our selfless acts of mercy for which we [i]will[/i] be rewarded, the point is, works are [u]not salvific[/u] in either case (Eph 2:8-9). [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]9. a) OBJECTION: [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][font="Verdana"][color="#000000"] "[u]or[/u],[u]as he puts it,[/u] that sin was transfused into the rest of the human race."[/color][/font][/color][/size][/font][size="2"][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"] ANSWER: It wasn't ME that said sin was [i]transfused[/i] into the human race, but Trent! They used the term twice in Session 5, # 2 & 3 ("transfused death" and "transfused sin"). [/color][/font][/size][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][font="Verdana"][color="#000000"] [font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"] b) OBJECTION: [/color][/font] "For my opponent, personal sins do not count, but only the guilt of being the same type of creature as Adam." [/color][/font][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] ANSWER: Wrong. I admitted in my opening P-2 that [i]"like begets like",[/i] and thus Adam's corruption [u]is[/u] transmitted to his descendants. However, the Bible says it is not our Adamic [i]nature[/i] that immediately condemns us, but the single, solitary sin of Adam. I noticed that Raphael has a newborn in his household. Pray tell, what sins did that child commit that you were hoping to eradicate when you had him baptised? If you can't think of any, then it was only the sin of Adam that was washed away.[font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] c) OBJECTION:[font="Verdana"][color="#000000"] "[/color][/font][/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font][font="Verdana"][size="2"]If we were not actually affected by Adam's sin, if the sin of our first parents did not affect our nature and incline us toward sin (rather than just making us guilty by association), then God who sees the heart would condemn none of us. No, God says that we are sinful because we are. God is honest."[/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] ANSWER: Again, whoever denied man's sinful nature? Notwithstanding, the divine government has decreed we are indeed guilty by association with Adam five times affirmed in Romans 5:15-19. Likewise, we are decreed innocent by becoming "guilty by association" with the Savior 25 times in the N.T. ([/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]1 John 2:5; 3:24, Rms 3:24, 8:1, 8:39; Eph 1:3, 2:13, 3:11-12; Phil 3:9, 14, 4:19; 1 Tim 3:13, 2 Tim 1:1, 1:9, 1:13, 2:1, 2:10, 3:15, 1 Cor 1:2, 1:30, Col 1:28, 2:6; 1 Thess 1:1, 2:14, 1 Peter 5:14).[/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][size="2"][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"] [/color][/font][/size][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] d) OBJECTION: [font="Verdana"][color="#000000"]Regarding original sin, which my opponent cites without calling it by name..."[/color][/font][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][font="Verdana"][color="#000000"] [font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]ANSWER: I [i]did[/i] call it by name in my opening statement, P-1.[/color][/font][/color][/font][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][font="Arial"][color="#000000"] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][font="Arial"][color="#000000"][/color][/font][/color][/size][/font] End.[/color][/font][size="2"][font="Arial"][color="#000000"] [/color][/font][/size][font="Arial"][color="#000000"] [font="Verdana"][/font][/color][/font][/color][/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="2"][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font][/size][/font] Edited October 15, 2009 by Stormstopper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted October 23, 2009 Author Share Posted October 23, 2009 Storm has just informed me that he has been suspended. In the meantime, judging by his message, I don't think he intends to return. Given the situation, justice demands that I call this debate a [b]draw[/b], however, in the interest of giving a defense of the Catholic teaching, I will post my last response, which I had just finished when I received his message. At this point, I don't think it would hurt to open this thread to general discussion, so per the precedent of "he who makes the thread calls the shots on when it's opened or closed, barring mod intervention," I open this thread for general discussion. God bless, Micah ======================== 1. Clearly, Stormstopper has the right to debate as he wishes. However, I will have to go on pointing out logical fallacies and loaded arguments. As for Luther and Protestant Soteriology, my opponent only mentioned Luther in his opening statements, which came before mine, so I'm not sure where he feels he responded to me. As for the attack on my opening arguments, I made it clear at the beginning of the opening statement that what I said was not a rebuttal of my opponent, but a summary of Catholic teaching against certain non-Catholic teachings. It is wrong to say that I somehow claimed my opponent believed what I was typing, since I specifically said that my opening statement was not a response to his. Regarding my opponent's assertion that he does believe faith must be lived out, there is only one question which must be asked: can a man be saved without living out his faith? If my opponent's answer is yes, then he argues against himself, as he has just chastised me for allegedly stating that he believed precisely that. It his answer is no, then this whole debate is moot because to say that a man must live out his faith to be saved is precisely what the Catholic Church means by "faith and works." 2. My opponent misuses a quote from Catholic Answers to prove something that will be quick to correct. There are hundreds of Catholic commentaries on Scripture. I will name a few: the Haydock Commentary, the Catena Aurea, the Navarre Commentary, the NAB Commentary, the RSV-CE Commentary, in addition to the commentaries on different passages passed on in writing from the Church Fathers and orally through homilies. There are roughly 65,000 priests in the United States alone, most of whom give a daily commentary on Scripture (known as the homily). Since the Church goes through nearly the entire Bible every 3 years in weekdays (2 years on Sundays), there are two consecutive Bible studies being offered by each priest throughout the world. That means that in the United States alone, there are 65,000 commentaries given every 2-3 years. These commentaries are largely varied and suited to the individual circumstances faced by each community, so that the richness of each Scriptural passage may be applied as fully and fruitfully as possible in each case. What Catholic Answers said, which was misrepresented, was that the Catholic Church does not have one central commentary, so as not to limit herself to any one commentary, but to allow all the senses of all the Scriptures to be interpreted in time and gradually unfolded for the benefit of all. This is entirely the opposite of not having any commentary or not delving into Scripture. Once again, a straw man fallacy has been made by my opponent and swiftly deflated. As for the meaning of the original statement quoted by my opponent, it is simply that it seems like quite a bizarre interpretation. I will take my opponent's reply to mean that it is his own interpretation, and so I ask to see the reasoning behind the interpretation. 3. As I stated in my last argument, it is NOT the teaching of the Catholic Church that Baptism comes first and then justification. Rather, justification begins at the moment of Baptism. So yes, it is wrong to insert "first" into a document of the Council of Trent, since that appears to skew the Church's teaching into what you would like it to be (which is a straw man fallacy). Regarding the passage with the tent, there is no reason to believe that your interpretation is a valid one. I could just as easily take the meeting tent itself to prefigure the Church, that is to say that a person comes to the Church to be washed, in order to be cleansed for the encounter with God. In such an interpretation, the placement of the laver only makes good sense. To be honest, I think this is a better interpretation than to say that a white tent represents a white robe which represents the spotless Lamb. What you fail to understand about the sacraments, particularly Baptism, is that they are an exercise of faith. The question I asked in my first paragraph is relevant here. If living the faith is necessary for salvation, that salvation comes as we live the faith. Baptism is a way, the first way prescribed by Christ, to live the faith. Acts 2:38 makes it clear. What must we do to be saved? St. Peter does not say, "don't worry, you believed my words, you're saved already, but here are some things you should do now that you are saved." No, St. Peter responds, knowing they have believed his words, by telling them how to live out that faith in order to be saved: "repent and be baptized." What is Baptism for? Peter goes on to say that Baptism is "for the forgiveness of your sins." Now, is Baptism without faith? No. Is the Church saying that Baptism saves and faith does not? Far from it! The Church is saying that Baptism is the living out of faith. Regarding your claim that the Catholic Church says catechumens (adult candidates for Baptism are called catechumens, not catechumenates; the catechumate is the process they go through), must FIRST practice the virtues, this is yet another creative insertion of the word "first" into the Church's teaching. The Catechism quote you provided merely says that as catechumens are educated in the faith, this should include formation in virtue. Without that formation, the new Christians wouldn't know how to live out their faith. The Corinthians certainly had trouble with that, so over the years, the Church has started providing a little more direction and formation before Baptism. I don't see how telling people to do good things even before they're completely prepared for Baptism is a bad thing. I am disregarding your quotation on the RCIA from a non-official source, per the rules of the debate, however, I will say as a theologian that we don't believe a catechumen can practice supernatural virtue before Baptism, so the quote is mistaken (one reason I insisted on using Church documents to make theological statements is that there are simply too many misinformed and/or deceptive Catholics out there making claims). As for my definition of justification, I tend to use the actual meaning of words (since words do have actual, real meanings). Justification does mean "the act of making just." That's a literal translation of the word. I can't help that it's that straight-forward. However, I do find it interesting that you say "justification is a legal or forensic term where a declaration or verdict of righteousness is in view, indicating a change in status rather than in nature. It does not mean to make a person subjectively righteous, any more than a verdict of condemnation means to make a person subjectively wicked." I find the verdict of condemnation to be an interesting analogy. Certainly there are cases where a subjectively righteous person is condemned and where a subjectively wicked person is regarded as righteous, but God is a righter of wrongs, and I think it's awfully shaky theology to propose that He would allow Himself to be fooled or to consent to the lie of calling someone righteous who is wicked. Regarding the verses you sight as evidence for your interpretation of justification, I found it amusing that most of them said to condemn the guilty and acquit the innocent, that is, to regard those subjectively guilty as guilty and those subjectively innocent as innocent. This is quite different from what you claim God does, calling the sinner righteous even though he remains subjectively unrighteous. What was more interesting was that two of the verses you cite specifically condemn what you say God does. Your quote from Isaiah gives woe "to those who acquit the guilty for bribes, and deprive the just man of his rights," even while you say that God acquits the guilty. Your quote form Proverbs says that "He who condones the wicked, he who condemns the just, are both an abomination to the LORD." Your theology says that God condones the wicked and considers them righteous even in their sins, instead of reforming them into just men and women. As for Romans 8:33, as I've said earlier, the Catholic Church isn't against imputed righteousness, as long as it's not an argument for sole imputation. Of course it is God who acquits us! It is God who justifies us! 4. My opponent once again builds a straw man fallacy, claiming that because Simon the Magician was baptized and continued to sin, Baptism is not what Catholics claim it to be. Catholic theology, however, clearly claims that men can be justified and fall away (otherwise, we would not believe in Reconciliation). The issue I believe my opponent wishes to discuss is whether justification is a process, something which can be grown in, lost and found again, etc. As for the claim that "the Bible will not permit being born again via baptism," the reader will have to decide whether this jives with Jesus' words in John 3:5, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit." It seems clear to me that the Bible not only permits but insists upon being born again via Baptism. As for references to Hitler, it's quite clear he left the faith long before he embraced the evil path he would take in adulthood. Baptism is an act of faith and living faith makes us children of God. This is not ridiculous, no matter how many people choose to stop being children of God and lead sinful lives. My opponent wants to give the impression that regeneration comes before Baptism or even faith, by pointing out that verb tense of the Greek in several verses. However, to say that "everyone who believes Jesus is the Christ has been born of God" does not conflict with the Catholic teaching. Those who believe Jesus is the Christ have indeed been born of God. Everyone who believes, that is, has living faith in Christ, has been Baptized. Baptism is one actualization of faith. As for St. Paul, it is clear that he baptized some, who would then busy themselves with baptizing the other so that he would have time to preach. His point is not to say that Baptism was unimportant, the context of 1 Cor 1:17 is that he is pleased he didn't personally baptize many of them because he doesn't want them to misunderstand the Baptism he would have done. Baptism is vital to the salvation of souls. It is not only the instruction of Christ to baptize (Matt 28:19), but it is also said that through Baptism, we are transformed, we die in order to live a new life in Christ (Rom 6:4, Col 2:12). St. Peter says that Baptism saves (1 Pet 3:21). Baptism saves! Acts 2:41 tells us that 3000 were Baptized when they believed the Gospel. Amazing to think that for something unnecessary, 3000 people would be in such a rush! 1 Cor 12:13 says Baptism is what joins individuals to the Church. Galatians 3:27 says that Baptism is when someone is clothed with Christ (didn't you say that salvation is when you're clothed in Christ?). 5. The mention of imputation in the Scriptures is irrelevant to this debate, as I have already agreed that imputation is correct, though not sole imputation. The verses you cite do not say that an unrighteous person may be considered righteous by God. The closest thing you point out is David's praise of God's mercy, but that does not prove that mercy is an act of God's crediting righteousness to the unrighteous. In fact, that verse goes straight to the problem. You would interpret it as back-up for your argument, but that's only because of your view of righteousness. Meanwhile, I view it as back-up for my argument: the man who is forgiven is qualitatively blessed. He has become a blessed individual. He has gone through a transformation of righteousness by the mercy of God. You cite verses that state that God did not regard the sins of certain individuals, but none of them say that this "forgetfulness" (for lack of a better term) of God happens while the sinner is still in sin. The Catholic response would be that the Lord offered His mercy, which was accepted, and forgot the sins of those who repented by His grace. I think this is part of the fundamental problem. For Catholics, God is the good and merciful Father who shows mercy through justice and discipline. In Protestantism (at least it seems to me), God is the indulgent father who shows mercy by letting people off the hook. This is not the Father I know and it is not the Father I want. 6. I find it interesting that at the end of your 5th paragraph, you mention 1 Cor 4:4. It, taken in the context of the preceeding verse, provides proof against the Protestant argument that one can be sure of salvation. St. Paul says that he does not even judge himself: "I do not even pass judgment on myself; I am not conscious of anything against me, but I do not thereby stand acquitted; the one who judges me is the Lord." St. Paul was not aware of anything that stood against him, that is, of any sins or reasons that he would not be saved, but still says that he has not been acquitted. St. Paul, whom you claim agrees with your views of salvation, says that he does not stand acquitted, but that the Lord judges him, even though he is confident that he has not lost salvation. This is precisely the view of the Church: we are to have confidence in the Lord's mercy and in our salvation, but we are not to assume that we are acquitted. 7. My opponent claims that I "agree with the Protestant view that this declaration [imputation of righteousness] involves a change in status rather than in nature." This is precisely what I have just denied agreeing with, so I find the whole point silly. He says that I am trying to hold two opposing views simultaneously. However, this is not true. To impute righteousness is to judge one as being righteous. Indeed, the Catholic Church teaches that God judges us as being righteous because He makes us righteous. However, my opponent's position, namely that the unrighteous can be called righteous, is incorrect. Furthermore, never once did I say that Christ's merit is distributed piecemeal; the Church doesn't say that the righteousness of Christ is imputed in parts and percentages. Now, that having been said, I never once indicated that the Catholic Church believes Catholics are cleaner than Protestants. Indeed, I am certain there are many Protestants who, though having fewer opportunities for grace, do much more with the little they have than the great deal of grace Catholics are offered (and so often reject). Regardless of which theology is right, only one is right, and I argue that a Protestant who is saved is saved in a way thoroughly Catholic; a Protestant who is saved is still cleaned in the process, no matter how much he may object to the theology behind it. Regarding the order of events in Matthew 9, I see no reason that the man could not have been healed with Jesus' forgiveness and not have stood yet. Indeed, the context of the passage indicates that Jesus was specifically proving that He had the power to forgive sins through the healing, which means that the two must be connected. If they did not happen at the same time, then Jesus said the man's sins were forgiven and then demonstrated a completely different ability, the power to heal, as the proof of the first ability, but that simply does not prove anything unless the implication is that the one is bound up in the other. 8. According to Fr. Haydock (a popular Catholic commentator), St. Augustine and other Church fathers interpreted 2 Cor 5:21 quite differently than you did, seeing a continuation of the Hebrew tradition of using "sin" (Hebrew "chattat") to mean "a sacrifice for sin." Such an interpretation would cast doubt on your interpretation, but undoubtedly, you'll disagree, so let's take your interpretation. A person cannot become sin any more than a person can become righteousness, but a person can be counted among sinners the same that a person can be counted among the righteous. This is your interpretation, correct? The problem here is that Jesus Christ took on human nature, the nature of fallen man, and that is the Incarnation, about which I do not know any Christians who disagree. While He did not commit personal sin and therefore remained righteous, he was among sinners precisely because he took upon Himself human nature. Because that is the mode of his being counted among sinners, then it is only reasonable to conclude that St. Paul's comparison ends with man becoming righteous by sharing in the nature of God, which he communicates by saying that we are the righteousness of God in Him. I absolutely detest the accusation that the Catholic Church claims you must follow anything aside from the law of grace. It is ultimately a rather low, below-the-belt tactic to refer to canon laws and catechisms, proof of the Church's concern for her people's salvation, and accuse the Church of being a replacement for the law of Moses, of somehow hindering the salvation of Christians. You who accused the Catholic Church of not providing any commentaries and interpretations for the faithful turn around and accuse the Church because she offers help, guidance, and education for the faithful. I have news for you: the Catholic Church has no "requirements" other than that people live out the faith, and God asks no less. The only thing you're upset about is you have a worldview where the Catholic Church has to be blamed for something, why I'm not sure, but it usually happens when an anti-Catholic starts complaining about the Catholic "burden" of canon laws and Catechism paragraphs. I'll never understand why anti-Catholics can't see the difference between, "follow all these rules and regulations and you'll be saved" (Mosaic Law) and "live out your faith in Christ...and by the way, here's what it means" (Christian Faith). What boggles my mind is that anti-Catholics get so upset over all the complications in the Catholic faith, when the only reason it seems so complicated and overwhelming is that for the last 2000 years, the Catholic Church has been defending Christendom from heresy and defining the faith for the clarity of the faithful, while anti-Catholic fundamentalist Protestants take advantage and spin the situation to make it appear that the Catholic Church is getting away from the Scriptures because she has taken 20 centuries to expound on the Bible, whereas Protestantism has honored the Bible but hardly even begun to unfold its value outside of dangerously literalist interpretations. As a completely unrelated side note, it would be wise not to call the Catechism of the Catholic Church the "Roman Catechism." The Roman Catechism is an entirely different book, it's the Catechism of the Council of Trent. I recommend you study the history in which Catholic theology developed. John Henry Cardinal Newman, convert to the Catholic faith, once said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant." 9. I said that justification and sanctification could not be separated, I didn't say that they were completely the same. The verses you quote don't refute my beliefs. To have both words together in a sentence only provides some support for my position that they are intimately related. I never said that we could not be saved unless we offered God our "entire nature, whole and undamaged, with dignity and perfection." Rather, I simply said that this is what we owe Him out of justice. Only a fool would disagree, because to say otherwise is to say that God deserves less or that God deserves sin. Now it is true that almost none can give himself/herself perfectly and completely to God. However, this does not mean that God will not transform us and make us capable of it, and when we fail (and most of us do) to reach perfect justification, that is what purgatory is for (put going into that would be off-topic). Toward the middle of your last paragraph, you call justification a state of being, although you somehow still maintain that a saved sinner is not justified in being, but in name, that is, that though a sinner in being, he is called just. Please explain how this is not self-contradictory. As for 1 Cor 3:13 ff., these nowhere indicate that works are irrelevant to justification. Let me give you a Catholic interpretation of these verses. The merit of Christ is the foundation upon which we build up our righteousness through the grace of God, building out of the materials of faith, hope, and love, but our righteousness will be tested, and purified through fire, the dross burning away and the whole structure being strengthened. Indeed, in this verse, a man who is justified even to some degree will still be saved, but the goal is to be built into the image of Christ. When a Catholic says that works are necessary for salvation, he simply means one thing: that man must cooperate with God, i.e. that God does not save man without man's cooperation. If you disagree, then you say God forces Himself on man. 10. a. Misunderstanding admitted. I won't pursue this further. b. When I had my son baptized, I did not mean to eradicate any personal sin from him, but the stain of original sin, that state into which he was born that made him incapable of living in heaven. In Catholic theology, the sin of Adam and Eve made them ill-equipped to live in paradise, the same way that a fish is ill-equipped to live in the sky. Because death was passed on to Adam and Eve's descendants, and sin through death, since death corrupts our nature and inclines us to grasp toward sin, I wanted to open his soul to grace, so that he might grasp toward life. c. You say that man has a sinful nature, yet just a moment ago, you said that the sin of Adam did not affect our nature. d. I was speaking in reference to this latest post. I do rather appreciate the point-by-point of the tenth paragraph. Perhaps we can do that if we must continue this complicated 10-paragraph format. God bless, Raphael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now