Justification - The Reformation v. Rome

Reformation Theology ^ | March 27, 2008 | John Samson

[Gamecock]

This is a useful summery for those who wonder why the Calvinists harp on Roman Catholicism.

[Gamecock]

[Mr Rogers]

The problem with systematic theology is that it injects human ideas and wisdom into areas God has not expressly revealed. More time reading scripture and applying it to one’s life is preferable to any amount of ‘theology’.

Scripture clearly teaches that we can do nothing to save ourselves. It teaches that God has reached down and made salvation possible. It teaches we must respond in faith, and if we do so truly, we are born again - a new creation. That new creation is changed, but sin still holds us back. The call to obedience isn’t one of ‘let God do the work’, but to accept the work God has done and try to obey Him.

If your life goes unchanged, you are not a Christian no matter how much faith you claim. If you are a Christian, you will still struggle with sin, and scripture is full of exhortations to obey. If it was easy, there would be no need for the exhortations.

The problem with works is that no man can work his way to heaven. The problem with faith is that many claim faith but refuse to take up their cross and follow Jesus.

Paul said it well:

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” - Ephesians 2

[Buddygirl]

I harp on Roman Catholicism without being a Calvinist

A friend and I were talking yesterday about celebrating Lent. We both agreed we don’t need Lent. Jesus’ sacrifice is enough. My sacrifice would never be added to His because of my sin. The sacrifice I could ever give is my living my life the way Jesus wants me to. I don’t approve of the way we are looking to Roman Catholicism for what we should be celebrating at Resurrection time.

[Gamecock]

The problem with systematic theology is that it injects human ideas and wisdom into areas God has not expressly revealed.

Congratulations! In your post you are practicing systematic theology!

It teaches we must respond in faith, and if we do so truly, we are born again - a new creation.

Actually, it teaches we are born again, then we respond in faith. Grace proceeds faith.

When you say, Scripture clearly teaches that we can do nothing to save ourselves. You are 100% right. Grace proceeds faith. We add nothing to salvation but our sin.

[Dutchboy88]

"Congratulations! In your post you are practicing systematic theology!"

Excellent observation, Gamecock! Ben, this entire thread is a good read. It highlights a number of places where Rome wandered off the path of the Book they claim to have given the world.

[Campion]

So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth;
It shall not return to Me void,
But it shall accomplish what I please,
And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.
— Is 55:11 (NKJV)

You're right, Gamecock, forensic justification is one of the primary Calvinist errors.

For Rome the declaration of justice follows the making inwardly just of the regenerate sinner.

This is false; the word which declares the sinner just makes him just in the same act. God's declarations enact reality. When the Bible says God said, "Let there be light," the next verse does not say, "And light was forensically declared to exist, though everything was as dark as it was before."

The Bible speaks figuratively about the sin being washed, cleansed, healed, and blotted out.

There is nothing even slightly figurative about it. It's really what God does. Calvinists always, ad nauseam, accuse Catholics of denigrating the Cross. This denigrates the Cross. To claim that the Cross only achieved a "figurative" blotting out of sin and that all the grace of justification does is change how God views us without changing us … it's just sad, when the real Gospel is so much better.

… put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness -- Eph 4:24 (NKJV)

[Campion]

Nothing wrong with systematic theology, as long as it's correct systematic theology. ;-)

I don't disagree with a single word of the rest of your post.

[ex-snook]

Follow the example of Jesus - do good works.

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.”

[swampfox101]

1 John 2
1My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

3And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

4He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

5But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

[armydoc]

This is false; the word which declares the sinner just makes him just in the same act. God's declarations enact reality.

So would that mean that our sin was not merely "imputed" upon Jesus in a "forensic" fashion, but that He became actually sinful in thought, word and deed?

[hfr]

I am not a Roman Catholic. I am almost the polar opposite.

But I have to say that according to the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” Roman Catholics believe that we are saved, “justified”, entirely by grace, and we ourselves add nothing to our salvation.

What appears to be contrary to the Reformation principle of justification through faith by God's grace is instead addressing the aspect of salvation referred to as “sanctification”, and the final aspect of salvation called “glorification”.

Some other issues are how we receive God's grace - and I strongly disagree with Roman Catholic doctrines in this area. I in fact think this is the main area of disagreement once R.C. theology is correctly understood. So it is not correct to say that Roman Catholic theology is contrary to what Scriptures have to say, especially those cited in the article and comments above.

I've said it before and will say it again, Roman Catholics make some subtle distinctions, but they are absolute distinctions, and they don't confuse them.

So much for defending Rome. My point is not that I agree with their doctrine, I just want to make sure that I understand it correctly and not be mistaken in my disagreement.

I believe very strongly that it is only when we understand Roman Catholic doctrines that we can, and only then, critically examine them and compare them with Protestant doctrines. I have found that so many of us don't really know what Rome teaches.

Now if anyone actually reads this I'm sure to get pounced upon.

p.s. Theology, like fire, can be a good servant, but also like fire, is a terrible master.

p.p.s. Human, finite, reason usually demands symmetrical and balanced logic. I've found that some Bible conundrums like "whosoever will" vs "I chose you" or the "horrible decree" fall into this category.

[Gamecock]

Fair enough.

The problem is that there are so many contradictory layers to Catholicism.

But I have to say that according to the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” Roman Catholics believe that we are saved, “justified”, entirely by grace, and we ourselves add nothing to our salvation.

Based on the below, I would have to say that the Roman Catholic Catechism does indeed teach that our works not only add too, but are required for, our salvation.

2010, "...Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life."

2027, "Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods."

2068, "The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them;28 the Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments.

[Mr Rogers]

“Actually, it teaches we are born again, then we respond in faith. Grace proceeds faith.”

Not what scripture says.

“...these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

There is no scripture saying life is given before we respond in faith. “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God...”

It doesn’t say we are given life so we can believe, but that by believing we may have life.

Grace precedes faith because we would have nothing to respond to if God hadn’t reached out to us. His grace, and his plan of salvation makes life possible, but we receive a new life by believing. “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life...”, not, “Whoever I give eternal life to will believe....”

This is an explicit teaching found in scripture. Faith is the word that describes what we have when we believe the promises of God.

[hfr]

G, good points. Back to the "subtle distinctions:

2010, "...Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life."

Note it is "sanctification" addressed here.

As to 2027 that again addresses other aspects of salvation.

And 2068,

The assertion is "salvation through faith".

Baptism: a vehicle for receiving God's grace. Not a "work" per se.

As to keeping the Commandments, Calvin Himself never taught "anomy". But I think this is a point of great complexity and again I don't think Rome is confusing keeping the Law and justification here.

As far as all this goes, I think the most fruitful line is to look at the idea that a "clergy" (the Roman priesthood in apostolic succession) has the only means of dispensing God's grace through the sacraments ministered by the Church.

And once that line is followed, we can see how that even though Protestant and Roman Catholic doctrine and Bible reading is largely parallel, they really operate on very contrary premises. For example the question at hand here: Salvation by God's grace alone. Protestants and Roman Catholics both agree absolutely that it is by God's grace alone, nothing added, that we are saved through faith. The parting of the ways beings with how we receive that grace.

None of this is to suggest that Roman Catholic teachings don't fall into what Protestants believe to be grievous error however. (Nor has the veneration of the "saints" even been broached - how that is "justified" is another fruitful line of seeing the differences between P & RC)

[Gamecock]

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all

John 6:63: This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.

1 Cor 2:12, 14 no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, THAT WE MIGHT UNDERSTAND the things freely given us by God...The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

[Gamecock]

G, good points. Back to the "subtle distinctions:

Thanks! If you don't mind I'm going to address one point at a time.

2010, "...Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life."

Note it is "sanctification" addressed here.

Note there is more than sanctification addressed here. Keep reading and you see that we "merit" the attainment of eternal life.

[Jim Noble]

We both agreed we don’t need Lent. Jesus’ sacrifice is enough. My sacrifice would never be added to His because of my sin. The sacrifice I could ever give is my living my life the way Jesus wants me to.

So, you've got the whole sin thing licked, huh?

Congratulations!

[Mr Rogers]

“In your post you are practicing systematic theology!”

Not really. Here is the difference:

In scripture we read, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

Systematic theology tries to explain what time it is, where is the kingdom of God, and turns “repent and believe” into “forensic justification”.

I don’t care if someone ever believes, accepts, or can define “forensic justification”. I just want them to know Jesus, and repent and believe the gospel.

If a Catholic says, “I know I am a sinner deserving death, but God in his grace has offered me life. I believe his promise and trust him to fulfill it!” - then he is my brother in Christ, regardless of Lent or believing in transubstantiation.

Why? “...because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

There is no requirement to score 80% or higher on a theology exam. The only restriction is the Jesus we call on must be the REAL Jesus, and not, for example, the brother of Satan per Mormon theology.