# Roman Catholic view of Justification in JDDJ and the reformed view.



## Jeroen (Oct 20, 2017)

I have email contact with a Roman Catholic friend, we have been going back and forth over justification. But whatever I say or whatever I quote from the RC teaching it always comes back to him saying that there is no difference or that it is a semantic discussion or whatever. He does this by quoting some pope or some text or flat out saying we believe the same thing.
It has me a little frustrated as I want to get to the heart of the issue.
But he thinks that the ‘joint declaration on the doctrine of justification’ has resolved and settled the difference. I am not familiar with JDDJ but I do think that I could pin him down using that as to further our discussion. 
Has anyone studied this document (JDDJ) and would you give me the main difference in that view of justification and the reformed view? I have glanced at the document but it all seems so vague to me.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 20, 2017)

I haven't read the book, but I have read the site here.

It is as opposed to the Reformation as it ever has been. The Antichristian Papacy continues to hide the Gospel inside of a works righteousness, which is condemned by Gal. 1:10.
They have never repented of their apostasy and the Council of Trent. They anathematize justification in it.

If you want to get "in-depth" on this issue, really you need to deal with Analytic Justification (which is taught by the Papists) and Synthetic Justification (which is Protestant).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 20, 2017)

I talk a little bit about this topic here from today's interview on Iron Sharpens Iron.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 21, 2017)

Jeroen said:


> I have email contact with a Roman Catholic friend, we have been going back and forth over justification. But whatever I say or whatever I quote from the RC teaching it always comes back to him saying that there is no difference or that it is a semantic discussion or whatever. He does this by quoting some pope or some text or flat out saying we believe the same thing.
> It has me a little frustrated as I want to get to the heart of the issue.
> But he thinks that the ‘joint declaration on the doctrine of justification’ has resolved and settled the difference. I am not familiar with JDDJ but I do think that I could pin him down using that as to further our discussion.
> Has anyone studied this document (JDDJ) and would you give me the main difference in that view of justification and the reformed view? I have glanced at the document but it all seems so vague to me.


the Church of Rome still officially holds with the Council of Trent in regards to this issue, so they would see salvation as sinners co operating with God through the Sacramental graces in order to get to an actual spiritual condition that warrants /merits God saving them in the end. A sinner must become good enough by infused grace to allow God to save them. That view is still not the real Gospel, and a false one, that really denys the Cross of Christ that saves.


----------



## Jeroen (Oct 21, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> the Church of Rome still officially holds with the Council of Trent in regards to this issue, so they would see salvation as sinners co operating with God through the Sacramental graces in order to get to an actual spiritual condition that warrants /merits God saving them in the end. A sinner must become good enough by infused grace to allow God to save them. That view is still not the real Gospel, and a false one, that really denys the Cross of Christ that saves.


The problem is that he denies that this is what the Roman church teaches. As you can imagine it's difficult to continue like this. But he has a high regard of jddj, that is why I am going to try and use this, I struggle with it though.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn GT-I9505 met Tapatalk


----------



## greenbaggins (Oct 21, 2017)

All attempts are rapprochement between Rome and Protestants have failed to get at the heart of the issue. The main difference is that Rome believes that grace starts the _process_ of justification by God infusing grace into a person at baptism. In one sense, therefore, Rome says that people are justified at baptism. But in another sense, they are not justified until the final judgment. To make it there, one has to participate in the sacramental system, and produce good works. 

Protestants have always said that justification happens by a judicial imputation that is instantaneous in its effect. It is a judicial reckoning (or transfer) of our guilt to Christ, and His alien righteousness to us. This happens at the time-point of faith, and is full and complete with regard to our standing before God. 

On some points, therefore, we do agree. Protestants and Catholics both agree that grace is involved; that we get righteousness by grace, and that faith is also involved. The differences become clear when we ask _how_ we get the righteousness (infusion versus imputation), and whose righteousness it is (Christ's or ours), and whether our works are involved (which presupposes a prior question as to whether justification is a one-time act or a lengthy process).

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 21, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> All attempts are rapprochement between Rome and Protestants have failed to get at the heart of the issue. The main difference is that Rome believes that grace starts the _process_ of justification by God infusing grace into a person at baptism. In one sense, therefore, Rome says that people are justified at baptism. But in another sense, they are not justified until the final judgment. To make it there, one has to participate in the sacramental system, and produce good works.
> 
> Protestants have always said that justification happens by a judicial imputation that is instantaneous in its effect. It is a judicial reckoning (or transfer) of our guilt to Christ, and His alien righteousness to us. This happens at the time-point of faith, and is full and complete with regard to our standing before God.
> 
> On some points, therefore, we do agree. Protestants and Catholics both agree that grace is involved; that we get righteousness by grace, and that faith is also involved. The differences become clear when we ask _how_ we get the righteousness (infusion versus imputation), and whose righteousness it is (Christ's or ours), and whether our works are involved (which presupposes a prior question as to whether justification is a one-time act or a lengthy process).


The church of Rome cannot abide with what they call a "legal fiction." as we would say both a sinner and a saint, but they would say that we need to work with God enough to have His infused Grace make us close enough to being like Jesus now to merit getting saved by God. They also seem to hold to a type of Universalism, as even sincere persons of others faiths like islam can get into heaven, and that all Catholics will eventually by means of Purgatory. the only ones that are destined to Hell seem to be those who either know what Rome really teaches and refute it, or else ex Catholics who refute it now.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 21, 2017)

Jeroen said:


> The problem is that he denies that this is what the Roman church teaches. As you can imagine it's difficult to continue like this. But he has a high regard of jddj, that is why I am going to try and use this, I struggle with it though.
> 
> Verstuurd vanaf mijn GT-I9505 met Tapatalk


The vatican/papacy/cardinals still hold to trent.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 21, 2017)

> always comes back to him saying that there is no difference or that it is a semantic discussion or whatever.



Rome's doctrine is a fast moving shell game, much like the Fed Vis. If you have a copy of their catechism or you are communicating with one of their (t)heologians, the conversation will keep you guessing and quick on your feet as their doctrine sounds at times, much like ours, singularly. It is when you pile them up, one upon the other that you can see clear of their error.

In my past discussions with some of their more learned people, they are hard pressed when speaking with Protestants to press the smaller distinctions on the topic of works and justification-they stay very close to James and Romans, but there are differences which I was able to press them on and to which they would eventually agree. But yea, their catechism is a must have when interacting. Make sure you are loaded up and cite their own works.


----------



## Jeroen (Oct 21, 2017)

Thank you, you all have given me some new ammo. I will have to find a physical copy of their catechism as the website is just as hard to get into as their theology [emoji5]

Verstuurd vanaf mijn GT-I9505 met Tapatalk


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 21, 2017)

Jeroen said:


> I will have to find a physical copy of their catechism as the website is just as hard to get into as their theology


Try this:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Easy to work with.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

