Whats the deal with Catholics?

[mailmandan]

Dear Mailmadan

I do agree with your definition of "hope" in fact the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines the Theological virtue of hope this way:
Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit. (CCC 1817)
And I see you do have sanctification as a process. But Scripture uses Justification as a process as well.

Justification in the Bible First, here are some verses showing justification as a past event:
“Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand…” (Romans 5:1-2)
“Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.” (Romans 5:9)
“And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” (1Corinthians 6:11)

Justification is a past event and is not a process. Catholics error on this.

Note here that Santification actually precedes justification. St Paul uses these terms fluidly, unlike Protestantism which has created an artificial divide between the two.

Sanctified here simply means "set apart" and is not meant to precede justification. They happen simultaneously. Paul could have said but you were justified, but you were sanctified in that order in 1 Corinthians 6:11 and it would have meant the same thing. Sanctification is both an event and a process. There is positional sanctification in which we are "set apart" or made holy in standing before God "positionally in Christ," as in 1 Corinthians 6:11. Also, in 1 Corinthians 1:2 - To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus.. Yet there is ongoing or "progressive" sanctification in which the reality of that holiness becomes more and more evident in our actions, words, thoughts, attitudes, and motives.

1 Thessalonians 4:3-4, - For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain (present tense) from sexual immorality; that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor. Hebrews 10:14 - For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

Believers possess a positional, judicial standing of righteousness in Christ and, second, a remaining need for practical, progressive holiness in our behavior that is ongoing. We will reach ultimate or final sanctification when we receive our glorified bodies.

Next: Justification as a state to be completed in the future:
The following verses is the word Justified in a future incomplete sense

” . . . for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;” (Romans 2:13)
“Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” (Romans 3:20)

These verses are not teaching justification in a future incomplete sense. Romans 2:13 refers to the Jews who had the law and who heard the law. It is not enough just to have the law. It is not enough just to hear the law. A person must DO (keep, obey) the law. Paul’s argument is very simple: The Jews had the law (possessed it), they heard the law, but they did not do the law, and therefore the Jews are condemned. Paul is not teaching salvation through observing the law here which is clear from Romans 3:20 - Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Justification is therefore clearly a past event in the life of the believer.

Amen!

Unfortunately, most Protestants have camped out on verses which imply this and have concluded that justification is a once-for-all event, rather than also being an ongoing and not yet completed process.

Catholics confuse justification with "ongoing sanctification," which is an ongoing and not yet completed process.

But however attractive the single, once-for-all view of justification may be to some, there are serious exegetical considerations weighing against it. This may be seen by looking at how the New Testament handles the story of Abraham.
One of the classic Old Testament texts on justification is Genesis 15:6. This verse, which figures prominently in Paul’s discussion of justification in Romans and Galatians, states that when God gave the promise to Abraham that his descendants would be as the stars of the sky (Gen. 15:5, cf. Rom. 4:18-22) Abraham “believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (Rom. 4:3). This passage clearly teaches us that Abraham was justified at the time he believed the promise concerning the number of his descendants.
Now, if justification is a once-for-all event, rather than a process, then that means that Abraham could not receive justification either before or after Genesis 15:6. However, Scripture indicates that he did both.

Abraham did not receive justification before and after in the sense that faith was reckoned to him for righteousness. Catholics error here as well.

First, the book of Hebrews tells us that
“By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance, not knowing where he was going.” (Hebrews 11:8)
Every Protestant will passionately agree that the subject of Hebrews 11 is saving faith
But when did he have this faith? The passage tells us: Abraham had it “when he was called to go out to the place he would afterward receive.” The problem for the once-for-all view of justification is that is that the call of Abraham to leave Haran is recorded in Genesis 12:1-4 three chapters before he is justified in 15:6. We therefore know that Abraham was justified well before (in fact, years before) he was justified in Gen. 15:6.

Hebrews 11:8 - By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. But that is not the end of the story and the Bible does not say that Abraham's faith was accounted to him for righteousness until three chapters later in Genesis 15:6.

But if Abraham had saving faith back in Genesis 12, then he was justified back in Genesis 12.

Does the Bible say that Abraham's faith was "accounted to him for righteousness" in Genesis 12 or Genesis 15? Not until Genesis 15.

Yet Paul clearly tells us that he was also justified in Genesis 15. So justification must be more than just a once-for-all event.

That is false and your logic is flawed.

But just as Abraham received justification before Genesis 15:6, he also received it afterwards, for the book of James tells us,
“Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,’ and he was called the friend of God.” (James 2:21-23)
James thus tells us “[w]as not our ancestor Abraham justified . . . when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?” In this instance, the faith which he had displayed in the initial promise of descendants was fulfilled in his actions (see also Heb. 11:17-19), thus bringing to fruition the statement of Genesis 15:6 that he believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

In James 2:21, notice closely that James does not say that Abraham's work of offering up Isaac resulted in God's accounting Abraham as righteous. No! The accounting of Abraham's faith as righteousness was made in Genesis 15:6, many years before his work of offering up Isaac recorded in Genesis 22. The work of Abraham did not have some kind of intrinsic merit to save his soul, but it proved or manifested the genuineness of his faith. This is the sense in which Abraham was justified by works, "shown to be righteous."

In James 2:22, made perfect or complete by works means bring to maturity, carry to the end, to complete like love in 1 John 4:18. It doesn't mean that Abraham was finally saved based on his works in Genesis 22. When Abraham performed the good work in Genesis 22; he fulfilled the expectations created by the pronouncement of his faith in Genesis 15:6.

In James 2:23, the scripture was fulfilled in vindicating or demonstrating that Abraham believed God and was accounted as righteous. Abraham was accounted as righteous because of his faith in Genesis 15:6 long before he offered up Isaac on the altar and fulfilled the expectations of his faith.

Also, in James 2:24, James is not using the word "justified" here to mean "accounted as righteous" but is "shown to be righteous." James is discussing the proof of faith (says-claims to have faith but has no works/I will show you my faith by my works - James 2:14-18), not the initial act of being accounted as righteous with God (Romans 4:2-3). Works bear out the justification that already came by faith.

In the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the Greek word for justified "dikaioo" #1344 is:

1. to render righteous or such he ought to be
2. to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3. to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be

God is said to have been justified by those who were baptized by John the Baptist (Luke 7:29). This act pronounced or declared God to be righteous. It did not make him righteous. The basis or ground for the pronouncement was the fact that God IS righteous. Notice that the NIV reads, "acknowledged that God's way was right.." The ESV reads, "they declared God just.." This is the sense in which God was justified, "shown to be righteous".

Matthew 11:19 "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax-gatherers and sinners!' Yet wisdom is justified/vindicated/shown to be right by her deeds."

Abraham therefore received justification The problem for the once-for-all view is that the offering of Isaac is recorded in Gen. 22:1-18 seven chapters after Gen. 15:6. Therefore, just as Abraham was justified before 15:6 when he left Haran for the promised land, so he was also justified again when he offered Isaac after 15:6.
Therefore, we see that Abraham was justified on at least three different occasions: he was justified in Genesis 12, when he first left Haran and went to the promised land; he was justified in Genesis 15, when he believed the promise concerning his descendants; and he was justified in Genesis 22, when he offered his first promised descendant on the altar.

There is no problem at all with the once for all view of justification "in the sense" that "faith is accounted for righteousness," which took place in Genesis 15:6.

As a result, justification must be seen, not as a once-for-all event, but as a process which continues throughout the believer’s life. In fact, it is even a process which extends beyond the believer’s life. This is shown by passages in Scripture where Paul indicates that there is a sense in which our justification is still future:

That is absolutely false and the Catholic confusion seems to stem from believing that salvation is through faith AND good works. If salvation was based on good works, performing sacraments etc.. then it would be a process, but it's not. Christ saves us through faith based on the merits of His finished work of redemption "alone" and not on the merits of our works. *That is why it is not a process. It is through faith "in Christ alone" (and not by the merits of our works) that we are justified on account of Christ (Romans 3:24; 4:4-6; 5:1); yet the faith that justifies is never alone (solitary, unfruitful, barren) if it is genuine (James 2:14-24). *Perfect Harmony.*

” . . . for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;” (Romans 2:13)
“Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” (Romans 3:20)
Commenting on the second of these passages, the famous Protestant exegete, James D.G. Dunn points out that Paul’s statement alludes to Psalm 142:2 and then remarks,
“The metaphor in the psalm is of a servant being called to account before his master, but in the context here [in Romans] the imagery of final judgement is to the fore . . . Against the view that Paul sees ‘justification’ simply as an act which marks the beginning of a believer’s life, as a believer, here is a further example [in addition to 2:13] of the verb used for a final verdict, not excluding the idea of the final verdict at the end of life . . . “

Romans 2:13 is not teaching that believers will receive justification by works of the law in the future.

But even apart from such verses, we could deduce a future justification on theological grounds alone. Protestants place much emphasis on the declarative aspect of justification (i.e., God declaring one righteous) and they have places special emphasis on the legal/courtroom contexts in which this declaration may occur. However, the ultimate and final courtroom declaration concerning the believer does not occur until he stands before God (at his death and at the end of the world). So we may infer that the ultimate and final pronouncement of the believer as righteous does not lie in this life. We certainly are declared righteous by God in this life, but the final, consummating declaration of our righteousness will not occur until our Final Judgement, and therefore our final justification will not occur until this time. As a result, there remains a future justification for all believers.

Believers are justified by God in this life. The pronouncement of our righteousness at the Final Judgment does not mean that our justification is a process or was not already a reality. God would simply be proclaiming at the Judgment what was already a reality. Believers have been justified by faith and set apart by God, but believers will not receive final sanctification/glorification until after the Final Judgment.

 

[mailmandan]

Dear Mailmadan

In addition, the word salvation, redemption are also use in a past present and future sense. Showing that salvation is a process and not just a one-time- event.

Again, Justification is the past, one time event. Sanctification is the ongoing event and Glorification is the future event. These are the three tenses of salvation that you continue to mix up.

 

[God4me]

Dear God4 me
The Catholic Church is not made up of the Roman Rite. The Cathollic Church , which simply means universal is made up of 21 Liturgical Rites all having apostolic succession. The Catholic Church all 21 Rites are united in belief even though we celebrate the Liturgy in each culture with their own traditions. The Bible is first and foremost a book of the Church. It is a product of the Church through the inspiration of the HS as the author. But the Scriptures are Itself Oral Tradition written down

There is no such Biblical thing as Apostolic succession, even if there was it would be in the Christians Church, not the erroneous Catholic church.

 

[RobbyEarl]

We are justified by our faith in the work of the Cross and nothing else.

 

[Vdp]

Actually Catholics believe they are Saved by and Justified by the Catholic Church. This is why Excommunication is such a big deal with the Catholics. They actually believe they can lose everything if they are cast out of the Catholic Church.

BUT, since our Justification is by God we can never lose our Justification! Just like we can never lose our Salvation!

How can one walk in the Lord if they believe at anytime the Catholic Church can take away their Salvation? Their Justification?

We are grounded in the Lord!!!! We are not grounded in the Church!

We True Christians have our eyes on the Lord. The Catholics have their eyes on the Catholic Church. This is the main difference between the Children of God and the children of Satan.

 

[notuptome]

thanks I will make note of that and Let Pope Francis know so he can get that corrected!!!

Pr 17:16 Wherefore is there a price in the hand of a fool to get wisdom, seeing he hath no heart to it?

He's only interested in getting sodomy and sodomites accepted by the RCC laity.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Vdp]

LOL! I loved that notuptome!

 

[mailmandan]

Oral Tradition is a two edge sword. On the one hand the Catholics use Oral Traditions to back up their Doctrines. But since their Oral Traditions are not written down they cannot prove what these Oral Traditions said.

They think by them being Oral we cannot refute them. But yet at the same time they cannot prove this is what the Oral Traditions taught.

Very interesting thought and it's also interesting how Roman Catholics continuously use "fallible writings by fallible men" in order to back up their arguments on church doctrine.

 

[mailmandan]

So what happened to DeaconMike? He came on here like a whirlwind, then he simply vanished.

 

[jaybird88]

So what happened to DeaconMike? He came on here like a whirlwind, then he simply vanished.

He was banned. im shocked he lasted as long as he did. when blasting Catholics its always best to have as few Catholics as possible to defend their faith, especially those that are so knowledgeable on scripture.

 

[garee]

Oral Tradition is a two edge sword. On the one hand the Catholics use Oral Traditions to back up their Doctrines. But since their Oral Traditions are not written down they cannot prove what these Oral Traditions said.

Actually they are written, as a law of the fathers, mere commandments as doctrines of men. They simply make the word of God without effect therefore usurping the authority of our father in heaven .They followed the pattern of the apostate Jews turning thing of God upside down as if they came after sinful men.

According to the law of the fathers below we can see how they makes God’s word to no effect so they can keep their own witten traditions.

Law of the fathers #80 I. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41

 

[notuptome]

He was banned. im shocked he lasted as long as he did. when blasting Catholics its always best to have as few Catholics as possible to defend their faith, especially those that are so knowledgeable on scripture.

That is a totally unfair assessment of why folks like him get banned. It is not because he was RCC but because he did not respect the bible as the word of God and placed the writings of the ECF's equal to scripture. The bible is the final authority not ECF's or other men who wrote what they wanted the bible to say.

He stopped responding to my posts when he was confronted by scripture.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[kenthomas27]

That is a totally unfair assessment of why folks like him get banned. It is not because he was RCC but because he did not respect the bible as the word of God and placed the writings of the ECF's equal to scripture. The bible is the final authority not ECF's or other men who wrote what they wanted the bible to say.

He stopped responding to my posts when he was confronted by scripture.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Let's get real dude. He did nothing BUT quote scripture. He quit responding to you because he got banned.

 

[notuptome]

Let's get real dude. He did nothing BUT quote scripture. He quit responding to you because he got banned.

Actually he quoted the ECF's not scripture. I demonstrated to him where the ECF's he cited directly contradicted the bible. He then ceased to respond to my posts. It was later that he got banned.

The mods do not ban anyone without first addressing the improper behavior with the poster. He was not banned because he was RCC. There are a number of RCC here who do operate within the rules of the forum.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Vdp]

Actually he misinterpreted the Scriptures he quoted. He was trying to deceive the very Elect of God with the false doctrines of the Catholic Church. This is why he was banned.

 

[kenthomas27]

Actually he misinterpreted the Scriptures he quoted. He was trying to deceive the very Elect of God with the false doctrines of the Catholic Church. This is why he was banned.

Actually he quoted the ECF's not scripture. I demonstrated to him where the ECF's he cited directly contradicted the bible. He then ceased to respond to my posts. It was later that he got banned.

The mods do not ban anyone without first addressing the improper behavior with the poster. He was not banned because he was RCC. There are a number of RCC here who do operate within the rules of the forum.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Well, I guess you can believe what you want, but I read the whole thing and the only one keeping up with him was that guy MailmanDan. I don't know why people get banned and don't ask; it's not my website, but the guy responded to each and every one of you guy's comments and did so in a respectful way and for you to respond after he's gone and can't defend himself by saying "He stopped responding to my posts when he was confronted by scripture" is just plain wrong. If he hadn't been banned he would have confronted you all day long.

 

[jaybird88]

Well, I guess you can believe what you want, but I read the whole thing and the only one keeping up with him was that guy MailmanDan. I don't know why people get banned and don't ask; it's not my website, but the guy responded to each and every one of you guy's comments and did so in a respectful way and for you to respond after he's gone and can't defend himself by saying "He stopped responding to my posts when he was confronted by scripture" is just plain wrong. If he hadn't been banned he would have confronted you all day long.

i agree, he acted like a gentleman which says a lot about him when you look at how he was treated.

 

[tyndale]

hi jb. if any of ur rc friends were truly born again then no way could they remain in an the roman catholic church . what fellowship has light with dark. if you are truly saved yourself then you should be condemning the false teachings of the harlot rc church not standing up for it. i too have many catholic friends and i love them but the beliefs of their ch are satanic .

 

[notuptome]

Well, I guess you can believe what you want, but I read the whole thing and the only one keeping up with him was that guy MailmanDan. I don't know why people get banned and don't ask; it's not my website, but the guy responded to each and every one of you guy's comments and did so in a respectful way and for you to respond after he's gone and can't defend himself by saying "He stopped responding to my posts when he was confronted by scripture" is just plain wrong. If he hadn't been banned he would have confronted you all day long.

You are right. He would have confronted me all day long. He was not able to refute the scriptures and that is why he ceased well before he was banned.

He was arguing against God not me. He was deeply indoctrinated into Romanism and was not able to help himself. God gives them over to do the things which are not convenient.

Ro 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient ;

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[PaulMack]

I was born and raised in the Catholic Church. When i was 20 years old i was witnessed to by a friend of mine who challenged me to accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior. I had been told ever since i was a child that because i was a Catholic i already had Jesus.

But this message was totally different.

I did accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior. I also joined a bible study group in a local church near me.

After listening to the Scriptures i realized i could not stay in the Catholic Church any longer. I left the Catholic Church and i am glad i did.