# The Gospel under attacked by a former PCA member & Covenant T Seminary M.Div. student



## SolaGratia (Sep 1, 2008)

Here is the link:

www. principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2008/08/justification-and-monocausalism.html


----------



## SolaGratia (Sep 2, 2008)

Th papist can attacked our beliefs and it is fair game, but when we attacked theirs they called us Anti-Catholics. Nonsense!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 2, 2008)

Gil,
Relax. He's a very confused person. He need your prayers, and supernatural assistance to see his mistakes.

But you never saw his stuff until you hoped three blogs from RSC's. I know, I went there too. You couldn't have cared less... until you visited his site.

We don't post his stuff here, because we wouldn't let him be a member here, so he doesn't them have "a say." He can't be here to "defend himself," so we don't put up his words without permission. We don't want to get in the middle of an internet "war."

Your link is sufficient, for those who care can go see. In fact, you've just given him one more "exposure" that he couldn't get otherwise. Think about it...

Peace.


----------



## SolaGratia (Sep 2, 2008)

True! Being a former papist I get very excited against such things and I do not want to see this country turn popery either through immigrants or anglo-americans. Now that we do have to pray for!


----------



## Zenas (Sep 2, 2008)

Saddening.


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 2, 2008)

For some reason unknown to me, Rome continues to exert a pull on certain individuals. The brilliant man who followed me as pastor of a Baptist church some years ago came in claiming to be a devotee of Bahnsen and Jonathan Edwards. After seven years in the congregation, he stood up one Sunday and announced this his family was converting to Roman Catholicism! Now he is a traveling apologist for them against sola fide and sola scriptura. I get the reason they would cross the Tiber in our direction. Why any of us would swim in the opposite direction is beyond me!


----------



## py3ak (Sep 2, 2008)

People are pulled away from the simplicity that is in Christ. I think sometimes people get drawn to some particular aspect of the Reformed system, but the really plain bedrock, things like the need and reality of the new birth, the vicarious atonement, and so forth, have not become matters of personal reality to them. It might be something to argue about, but it's not something that has come to dominate your thinking so much that any denial of them is unthinkable.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 2, 2008)

There is a certainty in Rome that the division of the Protestant church cannot and does not provide. That is why I think we see some go to Rome and Constantinople.


----------



## JBaldwin (Sep 2, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> For some reason unknown to me, Rome continues to exert a pull on certain individuals. The brilliant man who followed me as pastor of a Baptist church some years ago came in claiming to be a devotee of Bahnsen and Jonathan Edwards. After seven years in the congregation, he stood up one Sunday and announced this his family was converting to Roman Catholicism! Now he is a traveling apologist for them against sola fide and sola scriptura. I get the reason they would cross the Tiber in our direction. Why any of us would swim in the opposite direction is beyond me!



We are seeing more and more of this in our community, but the pull seems to be to the Anglican church (though some of these end up in the catholic church). A reformed friend of mine who is a pastor has recently left joined up with the Anglicans, and I just learned that another friend's husband has announced he is considering the Anglican church. The pull seems to be the mysticism and works-based sanctification.


----------



## sotzo (Sep 2, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Gil,
> He's a very confused person.



Indeed. This statement is a good example:

"The key point I'm trying to make here with my Charles Manson example is that being in a heaven-bound state (were one to die right now) for Reformed theology does not depend on sanctification, while in Catholic theology it does depend on having (actually and truly, as one's own, even if imperfectly) the righteousness of Christ by grace through faith."

Not sure what he means by this...it looks to me like he is saying "in Reformed theology salvation does not depend on sanctification, whereas in Catholic theology salvation depends on having the rigtheousness of Christ by grace through faith though imperfectly." I don't see how these 2 are any different...salvation not depending on sanctification seems the same to me as salvation depending on an imperfectly lived-out righteousness which has been given to me by Christ through faith.


----------



## turmeric (Sep 2, 2008)

Personally, I'm just as confused on sanctification as anyone - what I've been told is that if I believe the Gospel and it really gets hold of me, the truth of it will make sin less attractive. I'm still waiting... but I'm not swimming no Tiber!


----------



## Davidius (Sep 2, 2008)

sotzo said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > Gil,
> ...



He's saying that Catholic theology sees an actual ontological change in a person as necessary to be in a heaven-bound state, whereas in Reformed theology the extrinsic imputed righteousness of Christ is what puts someone in a heaven-bound state. This stems from the Catholic idea that the righteousness by which we are justified is inherent.


----------



## sotzo (Sep 2, 2008)

Davidius said:


> He's saying that Catholic theology sees an actual ontological change in a person as necessary to be in a heaven-bound state, whereas in Reformed theology the extrinsic imputed righteousness of Christ is what puts someone in a heaven-bound state. This stems from the Catholic idea that the righteousness by which we are justified is inherent.



If so, then he is saying that ontological state may be imperfect. This seems like equivocation when the word "imperfect" is added. If we cannot become perfect by nature (ontologically), then on what basis are we accepted by God. Perhaps that's where the refinement of purgatory comes in.


----------



## Davidius (Sep 2, 2008)

sotzo said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > He's saying that Catholic theology sees an actual ontological change in a person as necessary to be in a heaven-bound state, whereas in Reformed theology the extrinsic imputed righteousness of Christ is what puts someone in a heaven-bound state. This stems from the Catholic idea that the righteousness by which we are justified is inherent.
> ...



I would guess so. As far as purgatory goes, I know we don't believe in it, but we obviously are "fixed" somehow after death, since we _do_ believe, along with Catholics, that we are still ontologically unrighteousness at death, though we say that we judicially possess Christ's perfection. Sorry if this is , but is it our view that the personal refinement just happens instantaneously?


----------



## wturri78 (Sep 2, 2008)

Huh...I will say, at least the discussion that's forming after his post is very interesting and quite civil, and the participants don't appear to be talking past each other or deliberately avoiding each other's points. That's a rarity in Internet apologetics if I ever saw one! 

It all does make one wonder what may have happened had the Catholic hierarchy not flatly and arrogantly rejected Luther's argumentation, but rather had actually engaged him and discussed the points of disagreement _before_ irrevocably condemning his ideas as anathema...

Ready, fire, aim!


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 2, 2008)

Davidius said:


> sotzo said:
> 
> 
> > Davidius said:
> ...



There is nothing to indicate otherwise, as I see it. I see no justification for a process - but rather does Scripture not teach that we shall be changed in an instantaneous 'faster than an eye can blink (1 Cor 15)' kind of change...?


----------



## caddy (Sep 2, 2008)

JBaldwin said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > For some reason unknown to me, Rome continues to exert a pull on certain individuals. The brilliant man who followed me as pastor of a Baptist church some years ago came in claiming to be a devotee of Bahnsen and Jonathan Edwards. After seven years in the congregation, he stood up one Sunday and announced this his family was converting to Roman Catholicism! Now he is a traveling apologist for them against sola fide and sola scriptura. I get the reason they would cross the Tiber in our direction. Why any of us would swim in the opposite direction is beyond me!
> ...


 
I agree with this...

Look no further than Kreeft who himself attended a Reformed College earlier in life...


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 2, 2008)

Or, as our friends in the FV see it, the certainty and assurance that comes by knowing that as long as you stay in good standing with the visible church, you are "in like Flynn."


----------



## FrielWatcher (Sep 2, 2008)

> The common question that arises is this: If Christ's work was sufficient, then what room is left for us to contribute anything to our final justification? The dilemma looks like this: Either part of our final justification is from ourselves, in which case Christ's work was not sufficient for our final justification, or Christ's work was sufficient for our final justification, in which case there is no room or space left for us to contribute to our final justification. Or again: Either all our righteousness is Christ's, in which case we contributed nothing, or our righteousness is some fraction of Christ's righteousness and our own righteousness (e.g. 50/50, or 70/30, etc.).



I thought Christ did it all and that His entire righteousness is ours based on faith with obedience, that we cannot be at all counted as righteous apart from Christ? So any work that we do toward righteousness is the grace of God in Christ, therefore He gets all the credit in the end? Seems like works legalism In my humble opinion.


----------



## CharlieJ (Sep 2, 2008)

Davidius said:


> I would guess so. As far as purgatory goes, I know we don't believe in it, but we obviously are "fixed" somehow after death, since we _do_ believe, along with Catholics, that we are still ontologically unrighteousness at death, though we say that we judicially possess Christ's perfection. Sorry if this is , but is it our view that the personal refinement just happens instantaneously?



WSC
Q. 37. What benefits do believers receive from Christ at death?
A. The souls of believers are at their death made perfect in holiness, and do immediately pass into glory; and their bodies, being still united in Christ, do rest in their graves, till the resurrection.


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 2, 2008)

FrielWatcher said:


> > The common question that arises is this: If Christ's work was sufficient, then what room is left for us to contribute anything to our final justification? The dilemma looks like this: Either part of our final justification is from ourselves, in which case Christ's work was not sufficient for our final justification, or Christ's work was sufficient for our final justification, in which case there is no room or space left for us to contribute to our final justification. Or again: Either all our righteousness is Christ's, in which case we contributed nothing, or our righteousness is some fraction of Christ's righteousness and our own righteousness (e.g. 50/50, or 70/30, etc.).
> 
> 
> 
> *I thought Christ did it all and that His entire righteousness is ours based on faith with obedience*, that we cannot be at all counted as righteous apart from Christ? So any work that we do toward righteousness is the grace of God in Christ, therefore He gets all the credit in the end? Seems like works legalism In my humble opinion.



Can you restate the bolded portion above? What do you mean by "based on faith with obedience"?


----------



## FrielWatcher (Sep 2, 2008)

toddpedlar said:


> FrielWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > > The common question that arises is this: If Christ's work was sufficient, then what room is left for us to contribute anything to our final justification? The dilemma looks like this: Either part of our final justification is from ourselves, in which case Christ's work was not sufficient for our final justification, or Christ's work was sufficient for our final justification, in which case there is no room or space left for us to contribute to our final justification. Or again: Either all our righteousness is Christ's, in which case we contributed nothing, or our righteousness is some fraction of Christ's righteousness and our own righteousness (e.g. 50/50, or 70/30, etc.).
> ...



Will do. Maybe it was "obedience" was not needed after all. I may have used it in lieu of fruit as the evidence of faith - not in a legal term. Obedience is required? Or faith covers that meaning obedience is a fruit of faith therefore implied? I rescind my proposition and state it as the same sans "obedience." Thank you. 

Knowing RC theology, it seems as though obedience is put in front of faith then salvation is credited based on works. It seems this man is doing the same with his writing saying that if we can contribute to what Jesus has done on the cross then we own a part of our salvation. 

Thanks again for the reproof.


----------



## Davidius (Sep 2, 2008)

FrielWatcher said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > FrielWatcher said:
> ...



I don't think he was reproving you, unless it was somehow underhanded. He just asked a question. 

Anyway, just so you have your terminology straight when dealing with Roman Catholics, "salvation" is not credited based on works in the RCC system. They do not see salvation as a one-time thing that happens in a moment, which is how they can talk about "salvation" being by grace (received in baptism) in the past tense (think Ephesians 2). You'll confuse them if you equate "salvation" with "justification," which, as far as I can tell, are almost the same in Reformed theology. For the RCC, it is final justification that is based on works; Salvation is an ontological state, the state of being in Christ/the Church.


----------



## Christusregnat (Sep 2, 2008)

Davidius said:


> You'll confuse them if you equate "salvation" with "justification," which, as far as I can tell, are almost the same in Reformed theology



Davidius,

This is not quite accurate. Salvation, in terms of the Westminster standards, is an inclusive term, which includes election, calling, justification, sanctification, adoption, glorification, and any other -ation that goes in there. 

See, for instance, the Catechisms questions on sanctification.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## wturri78 (Sep 2, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > You'll confuse them if you equate "salvation" with "justification," which, as far as I can tell, are almost the same in Reformed theology
> ...



This probably is wandering  but I can see where Catholics are confused by the Reformed understanding of "salvation," when the term is used in a variety of ways and a variety of contexts, and generally misused outside of carefully formulated documents. Strictly speaking, I understand "salvation" in the way you've quoted the WCF--it includes many components that can be distinguished but not separated. Properly speaking, it may not be correct to say we're "saved by faith alone," but rather "justified by faith alone," since justification is the beginning of salvation in its larger sense. But it is forensic and positional, rather than ontological--although at the end (glorification) it _becomes_ ontological. At the beginning you're righteous by declaration ("holy" by virtue of being set apart unto God), and at the end you're righteous by being conformed to the image of Christ ("holy" intrinsically, unable to sin). That's how I take language like 1 Peter, "long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow up to salvation." 

But in the end, you are not allowed into heaven because of your degree of intrinsic righteousness, but rather because of Christ's perfect "alien righteousness." In Catholic theology, you're saved because you've become holy--in Reformed theology, you become holy because you've been saved. In Catholic theology, there is personal merit in your ultimate justification before God--yet they'll say that it's actually Christ's merit infused, so it's still "all of grace" and "all of Christ" (but aren't you still earning the right to have his merit put into you?)

Or maybe I'm completely screwed up, and a poster boy for why engineers shouldn't play with theology


----------



## moral necessity (Sep 2, 2008)

turmeric said:


> Personally, I'm just as confused on sanctification as anyone - what I've been told is that if I believe the Gospel and it really gets hold of me, the truth of it will make sin less attractive. I'm still waiting... but I'm not swimming no Tiber!



And, that's why Romans 7 is so comforting, for it's as good as it gets here. Paul spoke of the same dillemna, in my opinion. Sin was still attractive to Paul's flesh, as vs 14 and 23 says, and yet he was unattracted to it. And, theology that teaches otherwise is not healthy, for it is not reality. We have to become good liars to deny that part of us still loves sin. I think that's where the analogy of Israel overtaking Canaan is very fitting for the Christian. God will subdue our enemies within our souls, and often it becomes a give and take battle, at least from our perspective. And, many years are given towards such a task. And yet, our flesh will never be redeemed, and so it will always drive us in the other direction. And so, our waiting may seem very much like that of Abraham, for he waited 25 years, clinging to the promise of God for his son to come. And, as Rom 4 says, in hope against hope, he did not waiver in unbelief. He had no visual stimuli from his flesh to encourage him, for Sarah was well past time for bearing children, and so was he. And so, as we are going through seasons of time of wonder b/c of a lack of visual hope of sanctification, we ought to take courage from the promise, just as Abraham did. We must remember that our understandings are still corrupted with sin, and so we may often perceive amiss, and we may not perceive sanctification when it is really happening. And, we must remember that our flesh will never be sanctified, but will instead be discarded. So, the promise of Christ is our foundation, from which our assurance was born, and from which it flows. And, the sanctification of our persons will progress according to God's schedule. For some, it will be an hundredfold, and for some sixty, and others thirty. As Luther said to Melanchthon, "the Gospel is outside of you", and so that is comforting to me.

Blessings!


----------



## FrielWatcher (Sep 2, 2008)

Davidius said:


> FrielWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > toddpedlar said:
> ...


----------

