Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
What I maintain is unscriptural is the entire concept of salvation by the single profession of faith, the so-called once-saved-always-saved theology. Terminological differences are real but they are of secondary concern to me.
I. THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE ON JUSTIFICATIONWe have an authentic explanation of the Catholic doctrine in the famous "Decretum de justificatione" of the Sixth Session (13 Jan., 1547) of the Council of Trent, which in sixteen chapters (cf. Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchir.", nn.793-810) and thirty-three canons (l.c., 811-43) gives in the clearest manner all necessary information about the process, causes, effects, and qualities of justification.
(1) The Process of Justification (Processus justificationis)
Since justification as an application of the Redemption to the individual presupposes the fall of the entire human race, the Council of Trent quite logically begins with the fundamental statement that original sin has weakened and deflected, but not entirely destroyed or extinguished the freedom of the human will (Trent, sess. VI, cap. i: "Liberum arbitrium minime extinctum, viribus licet attenuatum et inclinatum"). Nevertheless, as the children of Adam were really corrupted by original sin, they could not of themselves arise from their fall nor shake off the bonds of sin, death, and Satan. Neither the natural faculties left in man, nor the observance of the Jewish Law could achieve this. Since God alone was able to free us from this great misery, He sent in His infinite love His only begotten Son Jesus Christ, Who by His bitter passion and death on the cross redeemed fallen man and thus became the Mediator between God and man. But if the grace of Redemption merited by Christ is to be appropriated by the individual, he must be "regenerated by God", that is he must be justified. What then is meant by justification? Justification denotes that change or transformation in the soul by which man is transferred from the state of original sin, in which as a child of Adam he was born, to that of grace and Divine sonship through Jesus Christ, the second Adam, our Redeemer (l.c., cap.iv: "Justificatio impii. . . translatio ab eo statu, in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae, in statum gratiae et adoptionis filiorum Dei per secundum Adam, Jesum Christum, Salvatorem nostrum"). In the New Law this justification cannot, according to Christ's precept, be effected except at the fountain of regeneration, that is, by the baptism of water. While in Baptism infants are forthwith cleansed of the stain of original sin without any preparation on their part, the adult must pass through a moral preparation, which consists essentially in turning from sin and towards God. This entire process receives its first impulse from the supernatural grace of vocation (absolutely independent of man's merits), and requires an intrinsic union of the Divine and human action, of grace and moral freedom of election, in such a manner, however, that the will can resist, and with full liberty reject the influence of grace (Trent, l.c., can.iv: "If any one should say that free will, moved and set in action by God, cannot cooperate by assenting to God's call, nor dissent if it wish. . . let him be anathema"). By this decree the Council not only condemned the Protestant view that the will in the reception of grace remains merely passive, but also forestalled the Jansenistic heresy regarding the impossibility of resisting actual grace. With what little right heretics in defence of their doctrine appeal to St. Augustine, may be seen from the following brief extract from his writings: "He who made you without your doing does not without your action justify you. Without your knowing He made you, with your willing He justifies you, but it is He who justifies, that the justice be not your own" (Serm. clxix, c. xi, n.13). Regarding St. Augustine's doctrine cf. J. Jausbach, "Die Ethik des hl. Augustinus", II, Freiburg, 1909, pp. 208-58.
We now come to the different states in the process of justification. The Council of Trent assigns the first and most important place to faith, which is styled "the beginning, foundation and root of all justification" (Trent, l.c., cap.viii). Cardinal Pallavicini (Hist. Conc. Trid., VIII, iv, 18) tells us that all the bishops present at the council fully realized how important it was to explain St. Paul's saying that man is justified through faith. Comparing Bible and Tradition they could not experience any serious difficulty in showing that fiduciary faith was an absolutely new invention and that the faith of justification was identical with a firm belief in the truths and promises of Divine revelation (l. c.: "illumque [Deum] tanquam omnis justitiae fontem diligere incipiunt"). The next step is a genuine sorrow for all sin with the resolution to begin a new life by receiving holy baptism and by observing the commandments of God. The process of justification is then brought to a close by the baptism of water, inasmuch as by the grace of this sacrament the catechumen is freed from sin (original and personal) and its punishments, and is made a child of God. The same process of justification is repeated in those who by mortal sin have lost their baptismal innocence; with this modification, however, that the Sacrament of Penance replaces baptism. Considering merely the psychological analysis of the conversion of sinners, as given by the council, it is at once evident that faith alone, whether fiduciary or dogmatic, cannot justify man (Trent, l. c., can. xii: "Si quis dixerit, fidem justificantem nihil aliud esse quam fiduciam divinae misericordiae, peccata remittentis propter Christum, vel eam fiduciam solam esse, qua justificamur, a.s."). Since our Divine adoption and friendship with God is based on perfect love of God or charity (cf. Galatians 5:6; 1 Corinthians 13; James 2:17 sqq.), dead faith devoid of charity (fides informis) cannot possess any justifying power. Only such faith as is active in charity and good works (fides caritate formata) can justify man, and this even before the actual reception of baptism or penance, although not without a desire of the sacrament (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, cap. iv, xiv). But, not to close the gates of heaven against pagans and those non-Catholics, who without their fault do not know or do not recognize the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Catholic theologians unanimously hold that the desire to receive these sacraments is implicitly contained in the serious resolve to do all that God has commanded, even if His holy will should not become known in every detail.
Regarding forensic justification, specifically,
Apologies for the long quote.(2) The Formal Cause of Justification
The Council of Trent decreed that the essence of active justification comprises not only forgiveness of sin, but also "sanctification and renovation of the interior man by means of the voluntary acceptation of sanctifying grace and other supernatural gifts" (Trent, l. c., cap. vii: "Non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed et sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis per voluntariam susceptionem gratiae et donorum"). In order to exclude the Protestant idea of a merely forensic absolution and exterior declaration of righteousness, special stress is laid on the fact that we are justified by God's justice, not that whereby He himself is just but that whereby He makes us just, in so far as He bestows on us the gift of His grace which renovates the soul interiorly and adheres to it as the soul's own holiness (Trent, l. c., cap. vii: "Unica formalis causa [justificationis] est justitia Dei, non qua ipse justus est, sed qua nos justos facit, qua videlicet ab eo donati, renovamur spiritu mentis nostrae: et non modo reputamur, sed vere justi nominamur et sumus, justitiam in nobis recipientes unusquisque suam"). This inner quality of righteousness and sanctity is universally termed "sanctifying (or habitual) grace", and stands in marked contrast to an exterior, imputed sanctity, as well as to the idea of merely covering and concealing sin. By this, however, we do not assert that the "justitia Dei extra nos" is of no importance in the process of justification. For, even if it is not the formal cause of justification (causa formalis), it is nevertheless its true exemplar (causa exemplaris), inasmuch as the soul receives a sanctity in imitation of God's own holiness. The Council of Trent (l. c. cap. vii), moreover, did not neglect to enumerate in detail the other causes of justification: the glory of God and of Christ as the final cause (causa finalis), the mercy of God as the efficient cause (causa efficiens), the Passion of Christ as the meritorious cause (causa meritoria), the reception of the Sacraments as the instrumental cause (causa instrumentalis). Thus each and every factor receives its full share and is assigned its proper place. Hence the Catholic doctrine on justification, in welcome contrast to the Protestant teaching, stands out as a reasonable, consistent, harmonious system. For further explanation of the nature of sanctifying grace, see SUPERNATURAL GRACE. Regarding the false doctrine of the Catholic theologian Hermes, cf. Kleutgen, "Theologie der Vorzeit", II (2nd ed., Munster, 1872), 254-343.
(ibid.)
I cannot speak to the Catholic approach to "ex opere operato," but from an Orthodox perspective, we (predictably) believe that this is not an "either-or" situation.
The Mysteries are not magic tricks with incantations, but neither are they merely subjective exercises of the "recipient." We do believe that if a properly ordained clergyman serves a service of the Church according to the forms prescribed by the Church, and with the blessing and authorization of the Church, that Christ acts through that Mystery.
On the other hand, the "recipient" is not without responsibility -- there is no "monergism" in the Holy Mysteries. The obvious example is indicated by the words of St. Paul regarding people eating and drinking damnation to themselves by receiving Holy Communion "unworthily," and that this leads to sickness in those who do so (both physical and spiritual.)
If it were as simple as "The benefits are conveyed by trusting in the promises of God," then St. Paul wouldn't have felt any need to make such a warning about communion -- he would simply have said that if you don't have faith, you won't get benefits.
Likewise, someone who goes to confession and says the words but doesn't make true attempts to change one's life (however feeble), is not only not receiving the benefit of that Mystery, but even places oneself in danger. Etc...
It is also clear in Orthodox teaching and practical experience that while the worthiness or sinfulness of the priest does not make a Mystery efficacious or of null effect, the state of the priest does affect the Mystery in some way. If this were not so, priests would not be given such strict guidelines of personal preparation for each service, nor would they ever be suspended from priestly service.
Or as was once said to me, "it is Donatism to believe that the sinfulness of a priest renders a Mystery invalid -- it is foolishness to suppose that a careless or irreverent priest is incapable of polluting a Mystery."
I think that it is pretty common amongst Orthodox Christians not to commune just anywhere -- we exercise discretion and tend not just to trot up to communion whereever we might happen to be on any given Sunday. Likewise, our priests exercise discretion in whom they commune, marry, baptize, etc..., precisely because they know that the state of the recipient will greatly influence the effect that the Mystery will have on that person. Whether or not it will have an effect is not the issue.
Excellent post, qua. All that God wants us to know and understand is knowable and understandable.
No magic involved.
"Without the imputation of righteousness the Gospel is not good news because we can never know if we are standing before God in a justified and therefore saved state. We will have to wait for some ultimate, but by no means guaranteed, salvation. The Gospel is not good news if believers may face thousands of years in purgatory before they come at last to heaven..."
Amen, and what a brilliant point. I never put it together that way before, but there really is no Good News with a ping-pong salvation theology, based on the inner goodness of men to make temporary free will decisions to accept Christ THROUGH a group of ever changing, but always fallible men who say that God wanted THEM, and many others, to be IN BETWEEN the believer and God. Nothing in this leads me to want to search upward and praise the Glory of God. I never realized how important this difference was before. Thank you, Dr. E., for an outstanding post! :)
My church offers the Supper about once per month in the morning and evening services on Sunday. It's staggered, so if one was looking for it, it is available every other week. It is well taught in our Sunday Schools who should and who should not partake. I would describe the ceremony as a fairly solemn one, which is split up as two separate ceremonies. With our pastor, there is no sense of going through the motions, he has something new to say every time he leads us in partaking of first the bread, and then the "unfermented" wine. :) Corporate prayers are said before each partaking, and I've always had the sense that it was very important.
I suppose what I am sort of dancing around is the idea of the Lord's Supper as "just symbolism". Here, in a Godly sense, I don't see anything wrong with "just symbolism". :) God uses symbolism and repetition (of verses) a million times in the Bible as a reminder to us to focus on Him and what He has done for us. When I take the Supper, I remember Him and give thanks. Every time. ... I see it as symbolic, but it is very good for me because I have yet to find myself in a position of not needing to be reminded of the greatness of God. :) So, for me, this symbolism is exactly what I need.
Although I haven't thought this comparison all the way through, I suppose I might think of the Lord's Supper like I think of baptism, a remembrance of something already accomplished. To me, this kind of symbolism is very positive and good.
I think you hit a home run. It has been said that since Jesus was showing His free will to obey, that it means that we are free to exercise our free will accordingly. Thinking of the most basic thing I could, I was reminded of how all of us are instructed by our Lord Jesus to pray to God: THY WILL BE DONE! We are not to pray for God to bless our free will decisions, and we are not to pray for God to lead us in making our free will decisions. We are to pray only for God's will to be done. That is EXACTLY what Jesus did Himself.
This is precisely the principle of imputed righteousness
I beg to differ. Obviously this is Job talking, not God. In his humility, Job would never dare think himself righteous in the eyes of God. A perfect man who "abstains from every kind of evil" would never have the pride to think he could be justified before God.
God's laws are inscribed in everyone's hearts. Everyone is subject to God's laws. The difference is that some choose to obey them; others refuse. The key element is pride. Only the proud could ever believe themselves to be justified in the eyes of God. A Christian would always consider himself unworthy. Only God knows who is justified and who is not.
All scripture is "God-breathed" including Job's comment.
"Only God knows who is justified and who is not."
"Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" Rom 5:1
Of course we pray for God's will to be done. But how meritorious is doing something that we have no choice but to comply with? Something is worthwhile to the Father when it is GIVEN UP WILLINGLY! This is a great part of why Christ was so highly exalted. No one had the power to take His life from Him - He laid it down FREELY! And as such, the Church Fathers note this, as well. Free will is MEANT to be given as part of our response of love to God. Without free will, a choice freely made, what exactly are we sacrificing, giving up?
Regards
I agree with your bolding, which is why I chose it.
We have not said we choose God without God!
Regards
Well, thank you very much!
Brother in Christ
I wondered if you would noticed. :O)
JK :God withholds grace not knowing what a man will do with grace given Him makes God just? Is God randomly choosing the elect?
Is God a just God for condemning people to eternal hell without "knowing" their response to potential graces that without, they cannot please God? This is not the definition of just, but a randomly chosen elect. Again, HOW does God NOT see what men do, when He sees all time as one moment? How is God's view of men's action hidden from Him who sees all time???
If God ordained none of them, then man was in control?
God doesn't need to ordain something to be still in control. God keeps things in existence. God grants graces when and to whom He desires, no matter what He allows regarding man's free will. God always retains control, no matter what man chooses to do. How could this not be so, since God sees into man's future and has already seen the end of time???
What would have happened had God seen that man would not have crucified Jesus? God would have been forced to come up with another method of salvation.
And how many angels can stand on the head of a needle? Does it really matter? The fact is that the crucifixion happened and that God chose what happened to happen. The rest is pure speculation...
the crucifixion must not have been the only way.
Explain to me why crucifixion HAD to be the manner in which God chose to save man. Are you now taking away God's free will in the manner of our salvation?
JK: Is God's will bound by His foreknowledge???
FK: My answer would be that God's foreknowledge is bound by His will. To me, it seems that the only way we can possibly understand this is to say that God willed first.
Ah, but how can God do "x" first and then "y" next when there is no time? Are hundreds of posts to you on this subject starting to sink in? This is what I mean by "simultaneous" actions of God. Strictly speaking, God does not have foreknowledge of His actions because there IS NO PAST OR FUTURE for Him. If all time is compressed into one moment, how can anything come first? Another example of this mystery is how Christ is eternally begotten. Again, I say we are approaching a subject that is not fully within our ability to comprehend. Here, brother, is where we must accept Revelation, even if we cannot fully understand how two different concepts can co-exist. Try not to rationalize mystery too much.
God withholds from whom He will withhold. His will alone determines who gets grace and who does not. He is the potter. That He withholds from anyone does make Him a just God..
This is sophistry. In the physical world, would you say that someone was just for denying someone water or food who lived in a prison cell and did not have the ability to feed themselves? You can't hold to both ideas: God is Just/God withholds grace from people without knowing their response. The Bible is full of testimony in which God turns His eyes from His people AFTER they turn from Him. It is only at this point where God turns away His graces - as Paul notes in Romans 1. His justice is true BECAUSE we turn from Him first, not because He blindly chooses whom to condemn. This concept is NOT Christian, brother, but a pagan concept of fate and determinism. This was one of the greatest reasons of why Christianity appealed to the pagans in the first few centuries; Christianity offered hope for people who had absolutely no control over their predetermined destiny. In Christ, we DO have control of choosing something better.
There must be a certain level of grace whereby everyone would come to God, right?
FK, God does not or will not overwhelm us with His graces. Except in very rare cases, God does not cause instant conversions. His presence is found not in thunder, or lightening, but in that tiny voice that is very easily drowned out or ignored. God desires a free coming to Him, not one where we are compelled by awe-sticken might and power. For some, God would literally have to shake the heavens - God is not about to do that for every person. Faith is indeed how He desires us to come to Him. What faith is required of a person who has seen the mountains move? God knows that certain people will not respond to His "X" value of graces that He will give without exceeding a miraculous showing.
Here is another example of God's dependence on man. God foresees man's exercise of his free will, and then God is bound not to withhold. Under your view, man steers God's will.
YOUR SALVATION DEPENDS ON THIS! That God bind Himself to YOU! You utterly rely on God's promise of eternal life! Does this mean that God has given up control to you, FK, because now God "has to" reward you? God condescends continuously throughout the Bible to call men to Himself. If He didn't, Adam would have been wiped out, and the Bible would have been 3 chapters long...
Since it happened before the fall, God named the animals through Adam
Perhaps, but the Scripture doesn't say that, now, does it?
I don't think God is in control because He knows our choices, He is in control because He does the work that is good.
Yes, God is responsible for every good work. There is nothing we give God that is our own, but is a gift from Him already. But yet, God does not save man without man. As I have stressed, it is not an "either/or" situation. The Bible is pretty clear that man will be judged for WHAT HE HAS DONE - in other words, in complying with the graces that God has given. God's graces can be rejected. You need to come to terms with this Scriptural fact. God's graces do not force man, ordinarily, to do something against man's will.
Is there such a thing as "man's morality" vs. "God's morality"?
I am speaking about "doing" the ten commandments. Man can obey the commandments, a morally good act, without God moving man, because man can have impurre motives for "obeying" the commandments. For example, the Pharisees. But it is impossible to obey God in a pleasing manner - faith working in love - without the grace of God. Not even once.
Regards
Well said!
Well, every 1000 posts, I must post something that we both agree on - it's in the contract!
Regards
I'm sure everyone agrees. I just have a question about the technical aspect of what happened at Jesus' baptism. If the Spirit indwelt at baptism, and Jesus was led all His life, then what changed, if anything, in the relationship? I know it's a big deal for us when the Spirit indwells, I'm just not sure of the mechanics of what it meant for Christ.
Sure! And it's telling us what Job believed.
Kosta: "Only God knows who is justified and who is not."
Harley D: "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" Rom 5:1
A lot of people use faith as justification. To become a Muslim, all one has to say is "There is one God, and Mohammad is His prophet" -- three times and believe it.
We are justified by faith and find peace in our Lord Jesus Christ, but so do the Messianic Jews, and various "Christian" sects that deny the Holy Trinity, or the Mormons who believe that God the Father used to be a man; so do the Gnostics; so do the Bogomils, etc. -- they all proclaim faith in Jesus Christ, and use the Gospels.
What makes you think your faith is the "right" faith when each and every Protestant interprets the Scripture his or her own way (of course, always "justifying" onself by claiming guidance of the Holy Spirit), yet coming up with thousands of different interpretations?
Sure, true faith provides justification by grace, but then if we all had the same knowledge we would not be having these discussions, HD. The fact that we do means that not everyone's faith is true. Therefore, only God knows who is right.
FK: I'm sure everyone agrees. I just have a question about the technical aspect of what happened at Jesus' baptism
To say that the Holy Spirit "empowers" the Son is neither biblical nor christological.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.