The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Dear Catholic, Friend

Friend
Today is ash Wednesday so I wanted to post this. If you are Catholic, a visitor or lurker to the Highway please read this it is probably the most important thing you need to know.

[color:"0000FF"]<font size="3">Who is a Christian?[/color]

A Christian is any person, no matter what his color, class or creed may have been, who believes the Record that God has given of His Son in the Word of God; accepts the verdict of God upon himself as a sinner; confesses that he is lost and hell-deserving; makes bare his heart and all his sins to God only; asks to be cleansed in the Saviour's Precious Blood, throwing himself for salvation by faith alone, through grace alone, on Christ alone. The true Christian gladly confesses: "I'm only a sinner and nothing at all, but Jesus Christ is my all in all." May God bless.</font>[/color]



William

I would address the very same admonition (it is probably the most important thing you need to know) to those in the NPP/FV camp as well.

-R

I just wanted to say- I appreciate this post greatly <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ClapHands.gif" alt="" /> It's rare that I can go to a protestant dominated board and have open and non-hostile conversations about theology, much less have a post that reminds everyone that, regardless of denomination, we all go to heaven as long as we believe in a set of doctrines. When He returns- denominations will be such a fickle thing. Again, thanks for posting, this just caught my eye <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bigglasses.gif" alt="" />

Please re-read this post very carefully. I can assure you that William was not including the Roman Catholic church (or any other entity that denies justification by faith alone) under the definition of "Christian."

A Christian is NOT someone who has been baptized into the Roman Catholic church and yet has no faith.. A Christian is NOT someone who trusts in his own works, plus the works of the saints, plus Christ's blood to get to heaven. A Christian is NOT someone who approahces a mass Sunday after Sunday to be justified over and over again. A Christian is NOT one who does good deeds in order to get more time off of purgatory or to gain good standing before God.

A Christian is one who one who is saved by gace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, as the post said. One cannot hold to official Catholic teaching and hold to that which is the core of what every true Christian believes.

I'm Catholic and fall under all of the requirements listed- as would most every catholic (The only exceptions being extremist groups who promote a "works based" faith)


My friend- please brush up on Catholic Theological stances- I recommend reading St. Thomas Aquinas as he addresses this issue in some detail. In fact- Justification is an idea that has been upheld through the Catholic Councils and solidified at the Council of Nicea and is certainly not denied by any degree in the Roman Church.
The Council of Trent makes this clear in it's proclamations. Here is a good explanation-




please read above- your comment here is a primary misconception about the Church


The Catholic Church does not promote a work-based faith. The Church does hold to the belief that if you are a Christian- you should be led to do works, but these works and not required by any means to get into heaven.

Romans 4:3-5 from my Catholic Bible:
"For what does Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.' A worker's wage is credited not as a gift, but as something due. But when one does not work, yet believes in the One who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness" (NAB- Catholic Edition with the full Papal blessing of both Popes John XXIII and Paul VI)


Nor does the Church believe such a heretical doctrine.



So those who believed in God up until Martin Luther went to hell? I sincerely doubt it. The Catholic Church agrees with the core doctrines of Christianity and the paragraph mentioned by William. Heck- the Catholic Church established these basic central doctrines through the Great Councils such as the Council of Nicea. Most of the things listed by you are some beliefs that have cropped up through radical catholic sects that have been censured by Rome. These views are over flaunted by many Anti-Catholic protestants who attempt to place this view by those few on the entire Church which is where my preconceptions about the Catholic Church as a protestant in an extremist protestant church came from. If you have any further questions about Catholic beliefs- please don't hesitate to ask, my door is always open for any questions/comments/friendly debates.

Propter Roma,
YC

Young Catholic,

You are either woefully ignorant about what the Roman State Church's official doctrines are or you are being deliberately deceitful..... which? Anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the differences that have existed and which are the battleground between Catholicism and Protestantism knows that "justification" is the doctrine (one of many to be sure) which has been the most debated. Baptismal regeneration is a doctrine most vehemently rejected by Protestants as being "works-based" and NOT of grace. Secondly, "infused righteousness" is likewise adamantly rejected . . . take note of my signature: simul iustus et peccator. As I have already indicated there is a litany of other doctrines which Scripture and thus true Protestants find in error. Thus we cannot recognize either the Roman State Church as being a part of Christ's Church on earth or in heaven nor accept the overwhelming majority of Rome's members are being part of the body of Christ, aka: Christian. Yes, there are undoubtedly exceptions in regard to individuals who are ignorant of what Rome teaches/believes. But we are confident that when these individuals are eventually enlightened, they will leave Catholicism as the truth of Scripture is revealed to them.

Perhaps if you read Michael Horton's article found here: What Still Keeps Us Apart?, it will either refresh your memory as to the REAL differences between Rome and Christ's Church or you will be introduced for the first time what they are. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

Lastly, as to your jovial remark about all those who before Luther went to hell, you are assuming, of course, that everyone before Luther was a faithful Roman Catholic. The truth is that there have always been those both within and without Rome's web who have been at odds with its teachings. Some survived with their opposition, e.g., Luther and many did not. But nonetheless, there has always been God's elect throughout history who have professed the truth as it is found in Christ and in His infallible Word. Though they have been and in fact always will be but a remnant, they are the sheep of His pasture and enjoy the grace of God in Him.

In His grace,

YoungCatholic,

As you are hopefully aware, much of the denial by non-Roman Christians of key doctrines of the Roman church centers on the allegation that Rome has redefined certain terms, wresting them away from their proper usage in the Holy Scriptures and thus making shipwreck of the faith once delivered to the saints.

Prominent among those terms is justification.

Above you quoted this statement (without attribution, btw: whose words are these?):

It would greatly help me to better understand your position--and since you seem to have been speaking propter Roma, Rome's as well--if you were to clarify the meaning you attach to the term justification by answering the following question:

Assume a living individual "A" who at a certain point in his life, with no consideration of his own awareness of the fact or lack thereof, is regarded by God as justified.

Are there any circumstances at all that would cause "A", at a later point in his life, to be regarded by God as not justified?

A simple yes or no answer could bring much clarity to your statements.

I can not grant you your wish of a yes or no answer- I don't believe in such - Justification is a one-time thing- one in which cannot be taken away from a person. Now saying this- this personal belief of mine is held by liberal Catholics (of which I associate myself with). We [liberal Catholics] hold that sometimes the grace aspect of Justification can be taken away if one renounces the God of the Trinity but can always be regained by repenting this action. The Council of Trent stated that the grace aspect of Justification could be lost via a mortal sin in which one is unrepentant. This is a point of contention still today in the Church and was addressed by Vatican II- but not concluded. I am also curious to know your thoughts on this. If I am a Catholic and if you believe Catholics go to hell- what about me- a Catholic who was born in a protestant Church (baptist) who was Justified in a protestant setting and accepted Him and was baptized in the protestant Church. I'm technically Justified in the protestant way- does that not mean Catholic or not even by your words- I am going to heaven?


I find this comment fascinating. Is it your premise then that saying one must be baptized either physically or have a yearning to be baptized is "works based?" If this is your premise, I find it quite illogical. If this is not your premise- please correct me.


So, despite the fact that the Catholic Church believes in the core tenants of Christianity- accepts Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross for our sins, acknowledges we are saved through His blood which is imparted to us by His Holy grace through our faith and we acknowledge God in three persons, etc we are all going to hell due to the fact we have minor quibbles with certain declarations of the protestant church pertaining to Justification? Hmmm...


Allow me to pull some quotes from the Declarations of the Council of Trent on the Catholic view of Justification

CHAPTER I
THE IMPOTENCY OF NATURE AND OF THE LAW TO JUSTIFY MAN

The holy council declares first, that for a correct and clear understanding of the doctrine of justification, it is necessary that each one recognize and confess that since all men had lost innocence in the prevarication of Adam,[3] having become unclean,[4] and, as the Apostle says, by nature children of wrath,[5] as has been set forth in the decree on original sin,[6] they were so far the servants of sin[7] and under the power of the devil and of death, that not only the Gentiles by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated or to rise therefore, though free will, weakened as it was in its powers and downward bent,[8] was by no means extinguished in them.

CHAPTER IV
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE STATE OF GRACE

In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.

This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:

Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.[18]

CHAPTER VI
THE MANNER OF PREPARATION

Now, they [the adults] are disposed to that justice when, aroused and aided by divine grace, receiving faith by hearing,[21] they are moved freely toward God, believing to be true what has been divinely revealed and promised, especially that the sinner is justified by God by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;[22] and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves from the fear of divine justice, by which they are salutarily aroused, to consider the mercy of God, are raised to hope, trusting that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice, and on that account are moved against sin by a certain hatred and detestation, that is, by that repentance that must be performed before baptism;[23] finally, when they resolve to receive baptism, to begin a new life and to keep the commandments of God.

Of this disposition it is written:
He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarded to them that seek him;[24] and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee;[25] and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin;[26] and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost;[27] and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you;[28] finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.[29]

One of the few differences, IMO, comes with the Catholic belief proclaimed:

CHAPTER VII
IN WHAT THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER CONSISTS, AND WHAT ARE ITS CAUSES

This disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself, which is not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an unjust man becomes just and from being an enemy becomes a friend, that he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.[30]

...this is still not "works based faith"

CHAPTER VIII
HOW THE GRATUITOUS JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER BY FAITH IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD

But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely,[44] these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God[45] and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification.

For, if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the Apostle says, grace is no more grace.[46] <---- doesn't sound like an "Catholic work-based view" to me...

I've seen the following snippet reworded and misquoted by several Anti-Catholic peeps. This merely states that even if we are justified- we are not "free" from not following the commandments.

CHAPTER XI
THE OBSERVANCE OF THE COMMANDMENTS AND THE NECESSITY AND POSSIBILITY THEREOF

But no one, however much justified, should consider himself exempt from the observance of the commandments; no one should use that rash statement, once forbidden by the Fathers under anathema, that the observance of the commandments of God is impossible for one that is justified.

For God does not command impossibilities, but by commanding admonishes thee to do what thou canst and to pray for what thou canst not, and aids thee that thou mayest be able.[58]

His commandments are not heavy,[59] and his yoke is sweet and burden light.[60]

For they who are the sons of God love Christ, but they who love Him, keep His commandments, as He Himself testifies;[61] which, indeed, with the divine help they can do.

Here are some official cannons coming out of Trent that may be of some interest:

Canon 1.
If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law,[110] without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

Canon 20.
If anyone says that a man who is justified and however perfect is not bound to observe the commandments of God and the Church, but only to believe,[122] as if the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life without the condition of observing the commandments, let him be anathema. <---- another one that is often misinterpreted or misquoted

Canon 22.
If anyone says that the one justified either can without the special help of God persevere in the justice received,[123] or that with that help he cannot, let him be anathema.

These were some of the proclamations of the Council of Trent- some of which have become questioned under Vatican II. While I certainly agree the Catholic Church and our Separated Brothern have differences in the view of Justification- we both believe that one is saved through His grace by our faith. The only difference in this is that Catholics also believe that one should be baptized as well as a preparation of One to receive His Blessed Spirit. The Catholic Church does not believe that by Baptism alone you are saved- and such a statement about the Church is quite simply false.


So St. Augustine- who is revered even by Protestants is in Hell? The Church Fathers of Nicea whom protected the early Church from heretical doctrines and laid the foundation of Christianity are in Hell? I find this point disturbing in the greatest.

The Catholic Church- like every denomination, is not perfect. However; the Catholic Church is constantly under attack by protestants as "The Church of Satan" "The Church of the Antichrist" "That intolerable church" etc. It seems...strange to me that while the Catholic Church opens it's arms and says since the days of the Blessed Pope John XXIII (Disclaimer: this is not an exact quote- but his views) "My Brothern, while we are separated by our views of secondary doctrines- we are still both members of Christ's family. And, while we have our sibling rivalries and conflicts- the Church shall never forget that you are our brothern whom are separated from our Church." This view of the Blessed Pope John XXIII is my personal motto- I still attend my Baptist church from time to time at the behest of my parents- and I am honestly taken aback by the Anti-Catholic bigotry I must endure there. My response is always that "I believe in Him and the core doctrines laid out through Him- I go the same place you go- heaven. I worship the same God who is in 3 Blessed Persons, etc." We are all brothers in Christ even if we have our differences on some points in doctrine and, as long as we believe what He laid out in His scriptures- we are all apart of the same family. The Catholic Church is not perfect as no Chuch is- but it is changing into an entity more scriptually sound
entity through the recent enlightenments of Vatican II.

One of the differences I see is in the way the two groups view justification applied to believers. Rome uses the word "infused" to describe Christ's righteousness applied to believers, while the Scripture (and protestantism) uses the word "imputed" to describe it. Huge difference here!

Imputation means that Christ's righteousness is bestowed in a forensic sense; that is declared or pronounced "NOT GUILTY" in the court of heaven because Christ's righteousness is credited to the believer's account by faith rather than works. That righteousness is demonstrated rather than "accumulated" by the believer's good works. The Scriptures speak of three imputations:

Adam's guilt imputed to all his descendants, or what we call Original Sin and human depravity;

Our sin imputed to Christ on the cross and paid for by His blood, fully satisfying God's justice for our sin, and

Christ's righteousness imputed to believers from before the foundation of the world. Christ's work in life, death, and resurrection having fully accomplished the total redemption of the elect.

By using the word "infused," Rome mixes justification with sanctification and removes the forensic sense in which Scripture defines justification by faith.

-Robin

YoungCatholic,

In order:

1) I see from a quick search that the attribution for the quote you provided--which you called a "good explanation" of the doctrine of justification--which I requested but you did not provide, turns out to be from Wikipedia's article on "Justification (theology)", subheading "Catholic views". In the future it would be both helpful and appropriate to document such attributions.

2) I have attempted to parse your answer(s) to my "easy question":

The fact that your initial response to a serious theological question is one of sarcastic humor is worthy of note.

Which means that your answer to my question is in fact "no"--there is no possible circumstance which would cause God to regard a person as justified and then later as unjustified.

Which means that your answer to my question is in fact "yes"--there is a particular circumstance which would cause God to regard a person as justified and then later as unjustified, which invalidates your own unqualifed statement "Justification is a one-time thing- one in which cannot be taken away from a person"..

Which means that your answer to my question is in fact "yes"--there is a set of particular circumstances (a larger set than that defined by the liberal wing) which would cause God to regard a person as justified and then later as unjustified, which either invalidates your own unqualifed statement "Justification is a one-time thing- one in which cannot be taken away from a person" or says that you are not faithful to Trent.

Which means that your answer to my question is in fact "Maybe Yes and Maybe No"--there may or may not be a particular circumstance which would cause God to regard a person as justified and then later as unjustified, which cannot be logically reconciled with your own unqualifed statement "Justification is a one-time thing- one in which cannot be taken away from a person".

YoungCatholic, I will leave you to wrestle with the implications of placing your soul in the hands of men who cannot clearly articulate an essential theological question without contradiction, equivocation and ambiguity. But regarding your use of the term on this site, you should acknowledge that your use of the word "justification" is one or more of undefined, unknowable, or unrepresentative of the Magisterium, and in all cases, a fundamentally different usage than that used by the non-Roman church. Failure to acknowledge that distinction will make any discussion of the term meaningless.

3) As to your following question:
As above, there can be no meaningful answer to your question without a common usage of the term "Justified".

4) Your following points all reference the post made by MarieP. I will leave it to her to address them.

IF baptism is in any way contributory, even instrumental in justification, then of necessity it is a work. In short, one who believes upon Christ with a true living faith which flows out of God's prior work of regeneration IS justified. Baptism is therefore ancillary to the fact and not a necessity for justification.

The Council of Trent has been abrogated/superseded by Vatican II and stands as the OFFICIAL statement of Roman Catholic doctrine. Whether or not you as a "Liberal" Catholic accepts that or not is irrelevant. The Pope, speaking ex-cathedra and the decisions of the Magisterium are binding and said to be infallible. Thus I am warranted to base my understanding and critique of Roman doctrine upon that document. That being so, I quote a portion of Michael Horton from the article I recommended to you where he quotes directly from Vatican II:

The Protestants never denied the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, but this was identified in Scripture as sanctification, not as justification. Rome simply combined the two concepts into one: God justifies us through the process of our moving, by the power of God's Spirit at work in our lives, from being unjust to becoming just. This, however, rejects Paul's whole point in Romans 4:1-5, that justification comes only to those who (a) are wicked and (b) stop working for it. God justifies the wicked as wicked, the sinner as sinner. That is the good news of the gospel, and the scandal of the Cross!

The most relevant canons are the following:

Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone (supra, chapters 7-8), meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

Canon 11. If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost (Rom. 5:5), and remains in them, or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema.

Canon 12. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy (supra, chapter 9), which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.

Canon 24. If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works (ibid., chapter 10), but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of the increase, let him be anathema.

Canon 30. If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.

Canon 32. If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema.

In other words, men and women are accepted before God on the basis of their cooperation with God's grace over the course of their lives, rather than on the basis of Christ's finished work alone, received through faith alone, to the glory of God alone. There are indeed two fundamentally different answers to that recurring biblical question, "How can I be saved?" and, therefore, two fundamentally different gospels.

These statements I and the historic Protestant Church (I say "historic" Protestant Church for the vast majority of "Evan-jelly-cals" today are essentially in agreement with Rome on the matter of justification) reject these statements and deem them heretical, i.e., contrary to the teaching of God's inspired written Word.

In His grace,

Papal Infallibility has only been used once- and not of this issue


Wikipedia is a tool I use often- I check the citations given and go back to the cited sources and find my reasearch there. It's a great tool to find such websites.


No- I am merely pointing out that this is my personal belief- and not the belief of many Catholics since Pilgrim especially pointed out that my beliefs don't always fall into line with the majority of the Church.


My point here is that the Church is still in conflict about the smaller points of this issue- the Church has been going through reform and certain issues are "still under renivations" if you will.


Just curious- what biblical references do you use, I could never get them from my old baptist minister.

Romans 10:9-11 "for, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved. For the scripture says, 'No one who believes in Him shall be put to shame.'"

I believe this biblical passage would do some good for both Protestants and Catholics to remember

Young Catholic,


This should get you started: Justification by an Imputed Righteousness (by John Bunyan)

The following site has 41 other links on this same topic should you desire more: Imputation of Christ's Righteousness

As you read the true content of the gospel, perhaps for the first time, you might consider whether the bold, supernatural confidence exhibited by the apostles and true believers through the ages could have been based on a doctrine which remains both "unresolved" and--implied by your own words that it is in need of "reform"--in opposition to God, [b]who alone justifies, more than 2 millenia later?[/b]

you know full well what I meant there <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" /> I merely point out the fact that the doctrine is still under the process of review since the reforms of the Blessed Pope John XXIII. I will bookmark those sites and read them later- my eyes hurt.