Posted on 03/12/2011 6:27:13 AM PST by Gamecock
"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." Romans 3:28 "Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness." Romans 4:4-5
I was going through some of my old study notes today and came across this short article by Dr. R. C. Sproul. In reading it through again, I was reminded about the magnitude of the issue as it relates to the very Gospel itself, and the vital differences that still remain between the two sides. Rome believes that justification is by grace, through faith and because of Christ. What Rome does not believe is that justification is by grace alone, or through faith alone, or by Christ alone. For Rome, justification is by grace plus merit, through faith plus works; by Christ plus the sinner's contribution of inherent righteousness. In contrast, the Reformers called the Church back to the one true Biblical Gospel: Salvation is by God's grace alone, received through faith alone, because of Christ alone, based on the Scriptures alone, to the Glory of God alone. Dr. Sproul's article (below) brings out the clear distinctions between the Reformers and Rome concerning justification - which as Martin Luther declared, is the article upon which the church stands or falls. - John Samson
Dr. Sproul writes:
At the heart of the controversy between Roman Catholic and Reformation or Protestant theology is the nature of justification itself. It is a debate not merely about how or when or by what means a person is justified, but about the very meaning of justification itself. Reformed theology insists that the biblical doctrine of justification is forensic in nature.
What does this mean?
In the popular jargon of religion, the word forensic is used infrequently. The word is not foreign, however, to ordinary language. It appears daily in the news media, particularly with reference to criminal investigations and trials. We hear of "forensic evidence" and "forensic medicine" as we listen to the reports of criminologists, coroners, and pathologists. Here the term forensic refers to the judicial system and judicial proceedings. The term forensic is also used to describe events connected with public speaking. Schools hold forensic contests or events that feature formal debates or the delivery of speeches. The link between these ordinary usages of forensic and its theological use is that justification has to do with a legal or judicial matter involving some type of declaration. We can reduce its meaning to the concept of legal declaration.
The doctrine of justification involves a legal matter of the highest order. Indeed it is the legal issue on which the sinner stands or falls: his status before the supreme tribunal of God. When we are summoned to appear before the bar of God's judgment, we face a judgment based on perfect justice. The presiding Judge is himself perfectly just. He is also omniscient, fully aware of our every deed, thought, inclination, and word. Measured by the standard of his canon of righteousness, we face the psalmist's rhetorical question that hints at despair: "If you, LORD, should mark iniquities, ...who could stand?" (Psalm 130:3 NKJV). The obvious answer to this query is supplied by the Apostle Paul: "There is none righteous, no, not one...." (Romans 3:10). God commands us to be holy. Our moral obligation coram Deo (before the face of God) is to live perfect lives. One sin mars that obligation and leaves us naked, exposed before divine justice. Once a person sins at all, a perfect record is impossible. Even if we could live perfectly after that one sin, we would still fail to achieve perfection. Our sin may be forgiven, but forgiveness does not undo the sin. The consequences of the sin may be removed, but the sin itself is not undone.
The Bible speaks figuratively about the sin being washed, cleansed, healed, and blotted out. The sin, which is scarlet, may become white as snow, the crimson may become like wool, in God's sight. The sin may be cast into the sea of forgetfulness or purged with hyssop. But these images describe an expiation for sin and divine forgiveness or remission of our sin. Our record does not change, but our guilt does. Hence Paul declares, "Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin" (Romans 4:8 NKJV). In our redemptive forgiveness God does not charge us with what we owe. He does not count our sins against us. If he did, no one (except Jesus) would ever escape his just wrath. No one but Christ would be able to stand before God's judgment. Again, God in his grace may regenerate us, sanctify us, and even glorify us. He might make us perfect in the future. He really does change the elect and will eventually make the justified totally and completely righteous. But even the perfected saint in heaven was once a sinner and has a track record that, apart from the grace of justification, would send him to hell. Thus, where temporal creatures are concerned, everyone who is once imperfect is always imperfect with respect to the whole scope of the person's individual history. This is what Thomas Aquinas meant when he asserted that justification is always of the impious (iustificatio impii). Righteous people have no need of justification, even as the healthy have no need of a physician.
Both Roman Catholic and Reformation theology are concerned with the justification of sinners. Both sides recognize that the great human dilemma is how unjust sinners can ever hope to survive a judgment before the court of an absolutely holy and absolutely just God. If we define forensic justification as a legal declaration by which God declares a person just and we leave it at that, we would have no dispute between Rome and Evangelicalism. Though Rome has an antipathy to the concept of forensic justification, this antipathy is directed against the Protestant view of it. In chapter 7 of the sixth session of the Council of Trent, Rome declared: "...not only are we reputed but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure...." Here Rome is jealous to distinguish between being reputed just and actually being just, yet it is still true that God calls the baptismally regenerated just. That is, for Rome justification is forensic in that justification involves God's legal declaration. A person is justified when God declares that person just. The reason or the ground of that declaration differs radically between Roman Catholic and Reformed theology. But both agree that a legal declaration by God is made. Nor is it sufficient merely to say that Rome teaches that justification means "to make just," while Protestants teach that justification means "to declare just."
For Rome God both makes just and declares just. For Protestants God both makes just and declares just -- but not in the same way. For Rome the declaration of justice follows the making inwardly just of the regenerate sinner. For the Reformation the declaration of justice follows the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the regenerated sinner (Rom.4:4-8; 2 Cor. 5:21).
No, I don’t have the sin problem solved. and I didn’t mean to instigate that I did. I am not as good as you smart ones with the language! Get over yourself!
“Warning, this post has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with bigotry. All Catholic and Orthodox Catholic posters, as well as all Christians of good will, are advised to avoid such threads as they are here to generate hate, not the love of Christ.”
Yes, the Spirit gives life. When we believe. He does not give life so we can then believe.
One problem with systematic theology is that it takes this statement:
“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
and attempts to dissect it. Neither God nor the Gospel is a frog to dissect. God draws (which does not mean compel) and whoever comes will not be rejected.
But we do know some things explicitly. Life follows faith. “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’”
How and to what degree God reveals himself to each individual man is something we do not know. God doesn’t tell us. But we know that God’s wish is for all men to be saved, we know it will not happen, and we know that to those who hear the Gospel, salvation comes to those who repent and believe.
Gee, the thread was moving along, people disagreeing with each other in a respectful nature, discussing different ideas calmly, rationally.
Thanks for your totally predictable post.
Lurkers, are you taking note?
That's the same thing here. What does a canon doctor say this paragraph means? The understanding isn't always immediately clear from one statement.
Witness Peter saying of Paul: "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:15-16)
I'm not trying to be rude, but a facile reading of one paragraph in the CCC won't be definitive.
The CCC is addressing salvation in its parts and in its whole - and I think what we have in this paragraph speaks to some of the things Paul said that have engendered vast quantities of thought and verbiage since he wrote them down. One example is this: "If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus." (Philippians 3:11-12)
This Scripture also: "Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain." (Philippians 2:16)
And this: "Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." (1 Corinthians 9:24-27)
The point to quoting these Scriptures here is that there are difficult questions that require study and guidance and don't yield to a facile reading. Please don't exegete them here to make a point, I have many commentaries available ranging from JN Darby to Henry to Gill to JFB to Barnes to etc etc.
And it becomes apparent that the CCC is addressing these issues as part of the total theology of our salvation.
And don't think I'm in agreement with the RC theology, I'm just pointing out where I think our real disagreement stands.
Gamecock might be hours ahead of me, here, so forgive if this is a repeat. You disdain "forensic justification" as a topic, yet you're schema here will require an explanation of "believe", "accepts", "repent", and, of course, "the gospel". Perhaps you believe these are so self-explanatory they require no theological discussion with regard to the details involved. If this is the case, you then must not notice the 2,309,876,345 misuses of these terms within cults, gangs, and other groups trying their best to win the affections of folks asking, "What do these mean?" Systematic theology attempts to do that within the confines of the Scriptural uses, disabusing folks of "personal interpretations" such as the Catholic Church has done.
Which book? The Book that Luther invented or the Vulgate?
As a convert, justification isn’t an area of contention between protestants and Catholics.
What protestants actually believe and what Catholics actually believe is the same damn thing.
The argument is simply between what protestants believe they believe and what protestants believe that Rome believes. From our standpoint it is a settled issue.
There are many areas of legitimate differences, but justification is not one of them.
"Wherever the knowledge of justification is taken away, the glory of Christ is extinguished, religion abolished, the Church destroyed, and the hope of salvation utterly overthrown" -- John Calvin's Reply to Sadoleto, Tracts I:41
Even Satan, and all the demons, believe in Jesus.
AMEN!
Indeed they do believe they are justified by grace..but they have to keep it with works and sacrament.. once justified it is their to lose, and the only way to keep it is the RC church
AMEN! Or else we would have reason to boast.
And we don't. Grace is free, unearned and accomplishes all God ordains.
No, systematic theology goes beyond the scripture. It assumes we need or deserve or can understand the explanation that God COULD have given, but did not.
Want to know what believe means? “to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in”
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4100&t=NASB&sstr=0
Note it occurs 246 times in 218 verses in the Greek concordance of the NASB.
Repent? “to change one’s mind”
It occurs 35 times in 32 verses in the Greek concordance of the NASB:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3340&t=NASB&sstr=0
Those are word studies, not systematic theology. You can find the meaning by seeing it used in context and seeing how it was used in secular writings.
Systematic theology takes a question like “Why do some people hear the gospel explicitly, while God allows others only less explicit revelation?” and then tries to give an answer.
But that requires revelation, not logic. It requires us to know as much about the human heart and how God will judge every man as God knows Himself. Sola Scriptura suggests that where scripture is silent, we cannot be dogmatic. I don’t believe Mary was assumed into heaven...but I cannot be dogmatic about it if I believe Sola Scriptura is accurate.
The problem is that God gave us scripture for a purpose: “...to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” - 2 Tim 3
He gave scripture to transform us, so that we might be equipped for every good work. God’s revelation isn’t to satisfy our curiosity, but to change us - so that we may become like Jesus!
“Actually, it *Scripture) teaches we are born again, then we respond in faith. “
Then you will have no trouble citing the scripture that says that, and explain the contradiction with verses that say “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.”
BY BELIEVING you MAY HAVE LIFE. Not you have life that you may believe.
We are saved by grace through faith, not grace through election. The former is the Good News of salvation. The latter is heresy.
“Even Satan, and all the demons, believe in Jesus.”
They have no choice. And someday, every knee shall bow, because someday every man will have no choice. And then it will be too late.
Believing because you must doesn’t save anyone.
Ask a Roman Catholic what "repent" means. Your simplistic view will disintegrate.
I believe all of us of the Reformed persuasion recognize the purpose of the Scriptures. Your wrongheaded thinking that all the "word" topics, such as "predestination", "foreknowledge", "justification", "sanctification", "calling" can be easily understood and agreed upon by folks who read the Scriptures ignores the great number of misunderstandings. The text, while the final answer, occasionally needs to be collected and explained. That is why the Scripture acknowledges teachers as a gift to the Body of Christ. The question is, "Are they careful with the text?"
"It requires us to know as much about the human heart and how God will judge every man as God knows Himself. Sola Scriptura suggests that where scripture is silent, we cannot be dogmatic."
Really? Is this "truth" from a passage or did you deduce it from your systematic theology? With all due respect my FRiend, the fact that you are using your explanations to try to persuade us demonstrate exactly that of which we have been trying to persuade you. Systematic theology is a tool EVERYONE uses, including you. Use it wisely.
***Systematic theology takes a question like “Why do some people hear the gospel explicitly, while God allows others only less explicit revelation?” and then tries to give an answer.***
It is no such thing.
Word studies are like dumping a jigsaw puzzle out on the table and looking at each piece from every conceivable angle, memorizing it, then throwing back in the pile. Systematic theology seeks to assemble the entire puzzle using the pieces and rules provided.
The vast majority of Reformed folk will shout what is plainly taught, and be quiet when Scripture is quiet.
Now that doesn’t mean that there are some who misuse the Systematic theology, but you can find people misusing all manner of things. That is an indictment on them, not necessarily on the item being used.
Should have pinged you to #38, also.
Good info.
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.