Posted on 05/23/2008 8:39:53 AM PDT by annalex
It says that he believed and it was counted to him. It does not say it was a one time deal, because the scripture enumerates other times when Abraham was justified through his acts, and in fact you don't dispute that. Your real dispute is with the fact that some people reject God and some don't, what you call Arminian view. But at that point you leave the scripture: you want to speculate how apparent rejection of God deep down, ineffably, means God did not choose them in the first place. I am only interested in the scripture. The scripture says Abraham was justified repeatedly.
The pattern repeats down your post. I agree with you here and there, -- for example, God does draw the believer as all faith is from God, and of course there is nothing but supernatural joy in heaven. But mostly what you do is build a philosophical speculation about free will -- or absence thereof -- and you fit what scripture you come across intot he speculation. I just read what's written: Abraham was justified severla times; Paul struggled with faith like all the rest of us, etc. If that doesn't fit my preconceived philosophy, I abandon the philosophy.
No it isn't. Show me.
Read the chapter, it is clear enough.
[ This verse is speaking of saved people, saved by faith who have an inheritance waiting for them already.]
It may be waiting a long time, because it is still in the believer's future, as the passage clearly shows.
It was in those believers future as a fact, so it isn't a process, it was an event.Just like it is in the future of today's believers, and that is the point that Peter is making, every believer has an inheritance waiting for him since he is saved.
God had set an inheritance in heaven, for those believers who were saved not being saved and are predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son (Rom.8:29).
Your argument of a three-fold stage of salvation is false, it is sanctification which is a three-fold, and both Peter and Paul were speaking of the final stage of Christian attainment of sanctification, obtaining a resurrection body and being glorified (Rom.8:30)
The qualities of justification We have seen that Protestants claim the following three qualities for justification: certainty, equality, the impossibility of ever losing it. Diametrically opposed to these qualities are those defended by the Council of Trent (sess. VI, cap. 9-11): uncertainty (incertitudo), inequality (inaequalitas), amissibility (ammisibilitas). Since these qualities of justification are also qualities of sanctifying grace, see GRACE. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htmAll three Protestant claims for Justification are correct.
Moreover, Protestants did not believe sin was only covered, they believe it was totally paid for and the believer made a new creature in Christ, but he still kept his old nature.
To prove this we may remark that the word justificare (Gr. dikaioun) in the Bible may have a fourfold meaning: The forensic declaration of justice by a tribunal or court (cf. Isaiah 5:23; Proverbs 17:15). The interior growth in holiness (Revelation 22:11). As a substantive, justificatio, the external law (Psalm 108:8, and elsewhere). The inner, immanent sanctification of the sinner. Only this last meaning can be intended where there is mention of passing to a new life (Ephesians 2:5; Colossians 2:13; 1 John 3:14); renovation in spirit (Ephesians 4:23 sq.); supernatural likeness to God (Romans 8:29; 2 Corinthians 3:18; 2 Peter 1:4) a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15); rebirth in God (John 3:5; Titus 3:5; James 1:18), etc., all of which designations not only imply a setting aside of sin, but express as well a permanent state of holiness. All of these terms express not an aid to action, but rather a form of being; and this appears also from the fact that the grace of justification is described as being "poured forth in our hearts" (Romans 5:5); as "the spirit of adoption of sons" of God (Romans 8:15); as the "spirit, born of the spirit" (John 3:6); making us "conformable to the image of the Son" (Romans 8:28); as a participation in the Divine nature (2 Peter 1:4); the abiding seed in us (1 John 3:9), and so on.Now, there isn't a Protestant I know that would disagree with that statement above.
The only difference is that the Protestant would hold that it was obtained by faith alone.
The Catholic idea maintains that the formal cause of justification does not consist in an exterior imputation of the justice of Christ, but in a real, interior sanctification effected by grace, which abounds in the soul and makes it permanently holy before God (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, cap. vii; can. xi). [Protestants do believe that and it occurs by faith alone and is a one time event-my comment] Although the sinner is justified by the justice of Christ, inasmuch as the Redeemer has merited for him the grace of justification (causa meritoria), nevertheless he is formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis), just as a philosopher by his own inherent learning becomes a scholar, not, however, by any exterior imputation of the wisdom of God (Trent, Sess. VI, can. x). To this idea of inherent holiness which theologians call sanctifying grace are we safely conducted by the words of Holy Writ.
And that is Christian growth, and has nothing to do with one's salvation, which according to Trents own words, is based on Christ's Justice (not his own), the believer grows in holiness (progressive sanctification) and bears fruit by desiring God's truth and yielding to the Holy Spirit (Rom.6-7).
That progressive sanctification does result in inequality in heaven, as will be made evident in the Judgement Seat of Christ (1Cor.3).
If you guys would study your own writings and find out what the Protestants REALLY teach, you would see that your scholars are misguiding you and contradict themselves by setting up strawmen arguments against the Protestant view.
Do I understand, then, that you believe in free will?
In recent decades, Finnish scholarship has revealed this dynamic in Martin Luther’s understanding of justification. The Finns roundly reject the suggestion that Luther’s view of justification is purely forensic. They say Luther affirms that Christ is both God’s favor (gratia) and God’s gift (donum) in justification, basing this on Luther’s own usage (Tuomo Mannermaa, Christ Present in Faith: Luther’s View of Justification [Fortress, 2005], 16-22). As gratia, Christ is God’s favor and forgiveness for the unrighteous. As donum, Christ is gift, the presence of divine life present in faith itself, creating a new being. Luther writes:
Christ is namely the object of faith, or rather not the object but, so
to speak, is namely the One who is present in the faith itself....
Therefore faith justifies because it takes hold of and possesses this
treasure, the present Christ. (Luther’s Works 26: Lectures on Galatians,
1535 [Concordia, 1963], 129-30)
Or again:
Faith is a divine work in us which changes us and makes us to be born
anew. (LW 35: Word and Sacrament I [Fortress, 1960], 70)
Or finally,
... we are not only to become loved by God through Christ, and have his
favor and grace (gratia) as the highest and most precious shrine, but
also to have Him, the Lord Himself, dwelling in us in His fullness.
(From a sermon by Luther on 2 Peter 1:4, quoted in Mannermaa, Christ
Present in Faith, 2-21)
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Reformation+Day:+October+28,+2007.-a0167512234
That justification was not the one Paul was speaking of in Romans, which is a one time event and results in salvation.
James is speaking of the justification that is seen.
There are two meanings to the word as even the note in the RCC bible (NAB) states.
They are enlightened by God (Rom.1) that is why they are without excuse.
Paul states that there was a sin among believers that even the heathen found vile (1Cor.5)
But that inheritance is or is not his depending on his works. "Make sure your calling and election" (2 Peter 1:10).
The scripture lists three different times when Abraham was justified, — true or false?
Yes, you're right of course. I guess I wasn't very clear on my point. Bad people can do good things. Good people can do bad things. Doing good or bad things is not what separates us.
There is no "free will". A person is a slave to sin. They delight in it and they do not seek after God. God came to seek and save the lost. Once saved man is "freed" by God from the bounds of sin, they can either sin or submit to Christ. If a believer who God has saved "chooses" to sin by giving into their lusts, God will chasten that person to submit to Christ. It is a learning and refining experience.
I don't see that as a free will. You are either a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness.
How many times was Mary justified?
Excellent question. Mary, being without original sin, was justified at conception. Not having sinned once, she remained in the state of contunual justification all her life.
That's a bit odd. Perhaps I've never thought of it before but how could Mary possibly be without original sin as the sin nature is past through the father? That would mean that Mary would had to have been born of a virgin birth, like our Lord. Is that what is taught?
On another note, what you are saying is that Mary was not justified by works or faith. In fact, it appear what you are saying is that God justified Mary. Strange that He doesn't do this for all. ;O)
Strange that He doesn't do this for all.
God does justify all the elect, not just Mary. As the scripture says, blessed are all who, like her, obey the Word and keep it.
To me this is an incredible statement completely denying the concept of original sin as developed by the early western fathers. If God could have intervened with one, why does He not do it for all? Why would He have appointed original sin to men, only to selectively remove it from one person throughout history?
There is nothing in the early church fathers writings about God selectively removing sin from Mary. In a quick search, this belief didn't pop up until the eighth century in trying to rise Mary holiness. In fact, it isn't surprising that the basis for this comes from the eastern fathers, not the western fathers. It underminds the true concept of original sin.
God does justify all the elect, not just Mary.
You were arguing earlier that Abraham justified himself three times. Now you are saying God does the justifying. Which is it?
The early fathers — maybe with an exception or two — held to the concept of Mary being free from actual sin. The idea of immaculate conception had to wait for two developments: the refinement of the idea of Original Sin by St. Augistine, to which the Orthodox East is still somewhat cool, and the understanding of life beginning at conception and not at some undeterminate time during pregnancy. So yes, this teaching will not be found with precise clarity in the patristic literature.
Abraham did not justify himself. Did I really say that? God justifies based on man’s works.
Amen, ftd. Splendid post.
This makes the Immaculate Conception a bigger miracle than the virgin birth of Christ.
Did you mean to say 'if' Mary was conceived naturally....?
[ Strange that He doesn't do this for all. ]
God does justify all the elect, not just Mary. As the scripture says, blessed are all who, like her, obey the Word and keep it.
Yes, obey and keep the word which is the Bible, not man's traditions.
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.