Pilgrim,<br> <br>I'm not sure what your point is... the canons you cited are pretty much referring to those who would like to claim a "cheap grace." Of course, Trent is also "in answer to" the heresies that were popping up all over Europe at the time too - and the text that the "reformers" were using could be taken quite heretically and easily lead to "cheap grace." <br> <br>Scott<<<<br> <br>
Hi Les,<br> <br>No offense was intended, and I had a feeling my message may have been taken that way (ie, that Calvinists believe they are the only one's saved). As you said, I think some Calvinists do feel that way, but that wasn't the point. The point is "many are called, few are chosen."<br> <br>God doesn't "need" our help. That's the common response I hear from Calvinists. God GAVE us the ability to "know, love and serve Him," and that's the point here. He wants us to love Him, not through coersion or some unjust election. If He wasn't leaving to us this ability, we'd have little strings on our arms and legs, or some pre-configured program from which we have no choice to stray from. The fact that we're not puppets and/or robots is evidence that God has indeed given us not only this Free Gift, but also the ability to accept that Gift. That is "true love" and "true devotion" to Him, and it doesn't take one iota away from His Sovereignty - for it was His Gift to us to begin with.<br> <br>So, we don't "earn" salvation - we "accept" it, for the "earning" part has already been done on the Cross.<br> <br>In JMJ,<br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">Scott<<<</font><br> <br>
I believe this article from the online CE says it better than I can:<br><br>------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br><blockquote>II. INDIVIDUAL SALVATION<br><br>The Council of Trent describes the process of salvation from sin in the case of an adult with great minuteness (Sess. VI, v-vi). <br><br>It begins with the grace of God which touches a sinner's heart, and calls him to repentance. This grace cannot be merited; it proceeds solely from the love and mercy of God. Man may receive or reject this inspiration of God, he may turn to God or remain in sin. Grace does not constrain man's free will. <br><br>Thus assisted the sinner is disposed for salvation from sin; he believes in the revelation and promises of God, he fears God's justice, hopes in his mercy, trusts that God will be merciful to him for Christ's sake, begins to love God as the source of all justice, hates and detests his sins. <br><br>This disposition is followed by justification itself, which consists not in the mere remission of sins, but in the sanctification and renewal of the inner man by the voluntary reception of God's grace and gifts, whence a man becomes just instead of unjust, a friend instead of a foe and so an heir according to hope of eternal life. This change happens either by reason of a perfect act of charity elicited by a well disposed sinner or by virtue of the Sacrament either of Baptism or of Penance according to the condition of the respective subject laden with sin. The Council further indicates the causes of this change. By the merit of the Most Holy Passion through the Holy Spirit, the charity of God is shed abroad in the hearts of those who are justified. <br><br>Against the heretical tenets of various times and sects we must hold <br><br><ul>[*]that the initial grace is truly gratuitous and supernatural; </li><br>[*]that the human will remains free under the influence of this grace; </li><br>[*]that man really cooperates in his personal salvation from sin; </li><br>[*]that by justification man is really made just, and not merely declared or reputed so; </li><br>[*]that justification and sanctification are only two aspects of the same thing, and not ontologically and chronologically distinct realities; </li><br>[*]that justification excludes all mortal sin from the soul, so that the just man is no way liable to the sentence of death at God's judgment-seat. </li>[/LIST]<br>Other points involved in the foregoing process of personal salvation from sin are matters of discussion among Catholic theologians; such are, for instance, <br><ul>[*]the precise nature of initial grace, </li><br>[*]the manner in which grace and free will work together, </li><br>[*]the precise nature of the fear and the love disposing the sinner for justification, </li><br>[*]the manner in which sacraments cause sanctifying grace. </li>[/LIST]<br><br>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm<br></blockquote><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br> <br>In JMJ,<br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">Scott<<<</font><br>
Scott W.<br>With as much respect as can be mustered under that which I am going to say, it is many opinions here that that which you pose is an outright contradiction of sorts from that which the Catechism of the R. Catholic church teaches. You are "wrapping the wolf in sheeps clothing."<br> The catechism flatly rejects justification by faith alone. The *mass* itself examples a work that is continuous, which contradicts the tetelestai sacrifice that protestantism embraces. So much more...........I suggest you approach this platform you stand on in a different light and just admit that that which you embrace *is not* the typical RC stance. It would be much easier to discuss ideas with you.<br><br>In HIM,<br>Scott Bushey
Scott,<br><br>Your previous post does not in any way reconcile your view of merit with that of Trent's. I think if you could reconcile the two views you would have done so yourself without quoting other sources. It would seem that you are still after all this time "halt between two opinions." <br><br>I remain hopeful for you, Scott.<br><br>Ron
"To be honest." I expected that when I said "I'm not sure what you're after..." that I was indicating you need to be more specific. It was a request for a more direct question. If you wish to call that a "non-answer" then fine, I understand, you can bow out that way if you wish.<br> <br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">Scott<<<</font>
I'm not sure how much more specific I could have been? The "point" was that Rome's confusing intermixing of "justification" and "sanctification" often clouds the OFFICIAL teaching of what is exactly meant by "justification". However, the Tridentine articles which were included in the quote by Horton in my last reply showed clearly that "justification" is NOT by faith alone, NOT an imputed righteousness, NOT a forensic declaration, NOT the possession of an alien righteousness, but DOES include works in the matter of justification, etc.
The further "point" was that the phraseology used by you is even more confusing that Rome's OFFICIAL teaching, which nearly everyone here has noticed and consequently pointed out to you. You are maintaining that what you have written is 100% consistent with the OFFICIAL teaching of Rome, yet, one would be hard pressed to discern this from the way you present your view.
Lastly, IF in fact you are holding fast to the OFFICIAL teaching of Rome, then what I stated in my first point is all the more valid and your presentation of it all the more obscure. For, it seems you are trying to present a case where the historic Reformational view of "justification" is not antithetical to Rome's OFFICIAL view. Of course, this novelty has already been tried with "ECT" and "The Gift of Salvation" and failed miserably because the antithesis is perspicuous, even to the average Christian. Unlike some "schmoozy" individual's today who are reluctant to call "a spade a spade", in such matters I am much more inclined to be like Martin Luther and call "a spade a damn shovel"! The issue at stake is one of eternal life or eternal damnation and flushing out misconceptions, disguised presentations, vague terminology, deceptive language, etc., is unfortunately necessary.
And perhaps to your chagrin, I am not "bowing out".
[color:purple]Further clarifying what Ron wrote and my response to him:</font color=purple><br><br><blockquote>Ron originally wrote:I'm not all together crazy about using the word "saved" when trying to discuss the nuances of merit with respect to justification but I think I grasp what you are saying. Let's see whether I do or not.<br><br>You stated that works done while in a state of grace are meritorious but that they don't "add to salvation." The reason you give is that one is either "saved or not saved". I trust therefore that you would say that the grounds of our justification (i.e. our being declared righteous and pardoned, presumably by virtue of the infused righteousness of Christ as opposed to the imputation of His righteousness) is always apart from our works that are wrought in Christ. In other words, your position seems to be that although works will indeed be present in the life of the redeemed such works that are wrought in Christ by grace are never the grounds by which one is justified.<br><br>Assuming I understand you correctly, How do you square your doctrine with Canon 23 On Justification taken from Trent? <br><br>Trent states: [color:red]"If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ...does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life, -- if so be , however, that he depart in grace, -- and also an increase of glory: let him be anathema."</font color=red> <br><br>Trent seems to be clearly agreeing with you that meritorious works done in grace may add to an increase of glory. Nonetheless, canon 23 On Justification also seems to teach that the merit of good works is "the good merits [color:red]of him that is justified"</font color=red> and consequently those works may then [color:red]"merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life..."</font color=red> <br><br>I'm sure I am missing something so please tell me how your doctrine comports with Trent. <br><br>Thanks,<br><br>Ron</blockquote><br>[color:purple]To the post I'm responding to now, Ron writes:</font color=purple><br><blockquote>Scott,<br><br>Your previous post does not in any way reconcile your view of merit with that of Trent's. I think if you could reconcile the two views you would have done so yourself without quoting other sources. It would seem that you are still after all this time "halt between two opinions." <br><br>I remain hopeful for you, Scott.<br><br>Ron </blockquote><br>----------------------------------------------------------<br><br>[color:purple]First off, thanks for remaining hopeful Ron. Second, as I highlighted in what you quoted above, "the good merits [color:red]of him that is justified"</font color=red>, Trent is still referring to "him that is justified." I must assume your problem is the wording of "an increase (of)... the attainment of that eternal life," and that seems to be the problem of Jason and others too. In the context that Trent is speaking here, we're still talking about one in the state of grace. If one passes on in such a state, they will have attained eternal life - but not of themselves, rather of grace. Works cannot increase whether one is saved or not, for again, one is either saved or he isn't - and that initial grace is still unmerited. If one merits an increase in grace through works, that doesn't increase one's salvation - again, that's an either/or situation - but one can attain greater rewards due to works, hence an increase, perhaps, in one's position (level of heaven or amount of rewards) but not an increase in the attainment of salvation. <br> <br>Does that better answer your question and/or reconcile the difficulty you seem to be having with Trent?<br> <br>In JMJ,<br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">Scott<<<</font><br> <br>PS- I thank you again for your patience.<br></font color=purple><br>
Pilgrim writes: I'm not sure how much more specific I could have been? The "point" was that Rome's confusing intermixing of "justification" and "sanctification" often clouds the OFFICIAL teaching of what is exactly meant by "justification". However, the Tridentine articles which were included in the quote by Horton in my last reply showed clearly that "justification" is NOT by faith alone, NOT an imputed righteousness, NOT a forensic declaration, NOT the possession of an alien righteousness, but DOES include works in the matter of justification, etc.<br> <br>Scott replies:[color:purple] I believe I answered that point in my response (a few minutes ago) to Ron. If you need further clarification then let's pursue that thread.<br> <br>In JMJ,<br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">Scott<<<</font></font color=purple><br>
I believe I answered that point in my response (a few minutes ago) to Ron. If you need further clarification then let's pursue that thread.
Yes, you replied to RonD but I found no clarification at all in it; sorry. So, I think it would be beneficial to start a new thread specifically dedicated to the discussion of "justification" so that it may be seen that there are in fact irreconcilable differences between what Rome teaches and what Reformational Protestantism teaches. And most importantly what Scripture teaches concerning "justification".
Scott B. writes: The catechism flatly rejects justification by faith alone. The *mass* itself examples a work that is continuous, which contradicts the tetelestai sacrifice that protestantism embraces. <br><br>Scott W. responds: [color:purple]Again, it depends on how one is using "justification." If you're talking justification means a process of sanctification, then all I've said works and is completely consistent with Trent. If you insist that justification means salvation - then I can see how you've interpretted what I've said as being inconsistent - but it's not me being inconsistent, rather it's you (and others) forcing your interpretation upon the teachings of Trent and the Catechism.</font color=purple><br><br>Scott B. continues: So much more...........I suggest you approach this platform you stand on in a different light and just admit that that which you embrace *is not* the typical RC stance. It would be much easier to discuss ideas with you.<br> <br>Scott W. responds: [color:purple]Yes, it would make it much easier if I just agree with you and your misapplication of Catholic teachings - but I won't do that.<br> <br>In JMJ,<br>Scott<<<</font color=purple><br>
Pilgrim wrote: Yes, you replied to RonD but I found no clarification at all in it; sorry. So, I think it would be beneficial to start a new thread specifically dedicated to the discussion of "justification" so that it may be seen that there are in fact irreconcilable differences between what Rome teaches and what Reformational Protestantism teaches. And most importantly what Scripture teaches concerning "justification".<br> <br>Scott replies: [color:purple] Ah! You've changed the subject here now! I was not attempting to reconcile Catholic theology to Protestantism! I was responding to Jason's (and others, yourself included) that I was not reconciling my views to Trent. There is no reconcilliation to the errors of Protestantism. The only reconcilliation here would be for Protestants to return to the Church they left - THAT is reconcilliation! I stress again, it was not my intention to wave the errors of Protestantism in your faces - a Protestant (RefBap) asked a question involving Catholicism, and another Protestant answered, but only presented a half-truth, and then attempted to present his half-truth as "the whole story" involving justification, sanctification and salvation. My intent was only to present a fuller treatment of the Catholic teaching on this matter - NOT to reconcile Catholicism to Protestantism.<br> <br>In JMJ,<br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">Scott<<<</font><br></font color=purple><br>
I see you've started a new thread. I have absolutely no interest in responding to a thread that starts right off the bat with "Romish" in it. Have a nice day.
Well, if you are wanting to bow out of a new discussion due to some offense to the word "Romish", you are certainly entitled to do so, although I personally consider it a unwarranted excuse. Perhaps the word has a totally different connotation to you than it does to me? But again, you are free to tuck your tail between your legs and run away from probably the most fundamental issue that divides Rome from Protestantism.
In reply to:
The only reconcilliation here would be for Protestants to return to the Church they left . . .
Of course from my perspective, I don't see that the Reformers left the true Church at all, but merely returned to the teachings of the Church which Rome apostatized from over the centuries. To some extent it's a matter of perspective, but in reality it is an entirely different matter which can and has been documented to show that Rome took upon itself a path that departed from the Church Fathers but especially the teaching of the inspired biblical writers.
In reply to:
My intent was only to present a fuller treatment of the Catholic teaching on this matter - NOT to reconcile Catholicism to Protestantism.
I can appreciate your "intent" to clarify and to reconcile your personal beliefs with the OFFICIAL teachings of Rome, which it seems is far more difficult a thing for you to do than perhaps you realize due to the obscurity of language used by both you and Rome. Although, I must admit that Trent is far better in stating its position than you are, IMHO. But be that as it may, that's an "in house" problem and not one that I personally have to concern myself with. For regardless of whether you are in total agreement with Rome's position or not, I disagree with both.
Lastly, it would indeed be an exercise in futility to try and reconcile Catholicism with historic Protestantism as they are antithetical to each other. The salient issue is which one is that which is the truth. And once that is determined will the errant party recant, repent and be reconciled to God?
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
The issue at stake is one of eternal life or eternal damnation and flushing out misconceptions, disguised presentations, vague terminology, deceptive language, etc., is unfortunately necessary.
