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).
This is a useful summery for those who wonder why the Calvinists harp on Roman Catholicism.
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
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.
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.
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.
So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth;You're right, Gamecock, forensic justification is one of the primary Calvinist errors.
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)
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)
I don't disagree with a single word of the rest of your post.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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)
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.
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.
So, you've got the whole sin thing licked, huh?
Congratulations!
“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.
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.