SolaGratia
Puritan Board Junior
Here is the link:
www. principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2008/08/justification-and-monocausalism.html
www. principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2008/08/justification-and-monocausalism.html
Last edited by a moderator:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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!
Gil,
He's a very confused person.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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?
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.
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"?
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"?
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.
You'll confuse them if you equate "salvation" with "justification," which, as far as I can tell, are almost the same in Reformed theology
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
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!
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.
I understand that he was asking a question and that it was not underhanded. It was deserving of an explanation and my statement needed a re-proving or a retraction because it was in error.
All in all, a tree is known by its fruits. We see who produces good fruits because of their faith and who produces bad fruits based on their whatever (most likely disbelief). The sum of this man's article - Dole fruit cocktail?
So is the RCC method of salvation valid because having family members in the RCC, I don't understand how they get saved because it seems as though it is based on works and not the enjoyment of God.