annalex,
I’m generally not a fan of these types of discussions where each side throws out their proof texts and declares that that particular proof text wins the case. Exegesis of Scripture should take into effect the whole corpus of Scripture and a complete storyline from which individual texts, periscopes, and books are considered in the context of the whole.
We’ve had now over 500 years of debate of whether justification is on-going or whether there is a division between justification and sanctification. My suggestion to you is to post another thread from your side that rebuts the Protestant arguments of a two-fold grace of justification and sanctification and we can discuss those arguments.
Sound fair?
Matter of fact, there was a good convergence of the Catholic and Lutheran perspectives on justification acheived about 10 years ago, but I don’t think the rest of the Protestant world accepted it or cared about it.
My problem with Protestant arguments is that I don’t think they reflect the scripture. It is hard to argue against a negative. This is why I keep pounding the scriptural aspect of this issue. I fully understand, mind you, that there are aspects of Catholicism that developed overtime and are not spelled out in the scripture at all. But the theory of justification I think is spelled out and it is not what Protestantism (agains, excepting traditionalist Lutherans and a few others) teaches. How can you argue, for example, that the judgement is not by works?