Author: pilgrim

A few months ago I watched this video by ReformedWiki:

I’ll admit, the video was rather disappointing – it took ten minutes to just affirm that Catholic and Reformed theology differ when it comes to the nature of justification. At no point was the Reformed case actually (ironically) justified!

There were some fruitful conversations in the Comment section, however, and the the chief issue among the Reformed commenters was the Catholic idea that one can increase in justification. Below is an exchange I had with a user called Wesley…

The Exchange

“An increase in justification, which can happen through our cooperation”. If you die believing this statement your sins are not forgiven and you don’t know who God is. Justification is 100% all of God’s work, if you alter this you have perverted the gospel.

This type of misunderstanding happens when people don’t study and trust the full revelation of God. This work out your salvation is not used in a legal justification context. Paul is very clear all throughout the New Testament that salvation is by grace alone. Here in Philippians Paul is encouraging the brethren to abide in obedience. Being obedient to the faith is evidence that we are born again, it is not the cause.

Wesley

I think we disagree as to what is “very clear”. If your theology was true, he’d have said “Evidence your faith by continued obedience…” but he doesn’t say that. Paul says “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling” which makes no sense if salvation is a purely forensic one-time act. What’s to “work out”? Why would this be done with “fear and trembling”? This is why you don’t find this model of justification in the Early Church. The Catholic view makes more sense, both of this passage and other things Paul says: “To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.” – Romans 2:7 “Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord” – Hebrews 12:14

Me

The Holy Spirit (author of the Bible) is “very clear” all throughout the Bible how men are saved. Titus 3:5-7 ” Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;That being justified by his grace we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life”.   This is very explicit language concerning salvation and the justification of a sinner.  Furthermore, you are adding your assumptions on how God would communicate. But God does say to us in essence “Evidence your faith by continued obedience…” 2 Peter 1:10 “Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall”

Wesley

No Christian alive denies Titus 3:5-7. It is indeed only by God’s grace that we can be put into right relationship with him. The Council of Trent affirms this and repeats the Catholic Church’s rejection of Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. However, the question is whether or not that’s the whole story. Is Justification a one-time act or a process? The history of the Church clearly sides with the latter, backed up by the witness of Scripture. I’d really appreciate some answers to the two questions I posted about: what’s to “work out” in salvation (if it is a one-time forensic act) and why should this be done with “fear and trembling” (if justification is already complete and irrevocable)?

In case you didn’t see my response, I’d really like to know what’s to “work out” in salvation (if it is a one-time forensic act) and why should this be done with “fear and trembling” (if justification is already complete and irrevocable)? If justification can be increased and salvation can be lost, this passage makes perfect sense reading it at face value.

Me

You are approaching the scriptures with the same interpretation technique as a Jehovah Witness concerning the deity of Christ. If Philippians 2:12 was the only verse in the Bible that mentions salvation, then you would be 100% correct. You must examine the full revelation of scripture especially when dealing with such an important doctrine. The root cause of your error is either the neglect or misunderstanding of Romans 3:21. Man needs a righteousness that doesn’t depend on his ‘obedience’. Then in verse 24 Paul declares that man in justified freely. It is repeated in verse 28. Then Paul gives us the example of Abraham in chapter 4. Romans 4:1-5 describe how Abraham was not justified by works, but by faith which is a gift freely given by God. Here in Romans is a theological treatise on how men are saved. The ‘working out’ in Philippians is an exhortation very similar to 2Peter 1:10 to make your calling and election sure. No man can actually contribute to their calling and election, but this is exhortative language used by the Apostles. The readers would’ve known the apostles teaching on justification that is declared in Romans 3. If salvation is having eternal life, how can a man lose something that is eternal? Christ declares in John 17:3 that eternal life is to know God, eternal life doesn’t begin when we die but when we are regenerated. In addition, believers are sealed with the Holy Spirit upon believing (Ephesians 1:13)

This also comes back to what happened on the cross. If Christ paid for all of the believer’s sins ( which he did) there is nothing left for the believer to do. His debt is paid, there is no issue that needs to be reconciled with God.

Wesley

> “If Christ paid for all of the believer’s sins ( which he did) there is nothing left for the believer to do. ” There is no question as to whether or not the cross is the source of all power to justify us. The questions at hand are (a) how and when that justification gets applied to us and (b) whether or not this justification can be *increased*. Regarding (a), if I were to talk your argument at face value, everybody should be justified since our justification is not contingent on any human participation. But, of course, you don’t believe that. Depending upon your brand of Protestantism, your answer would vary. Regarding (b), you’re just assuming that justification is simply a one-time forensic fiction… ironically, you haven’t actually justified that assertion!

As I said earlier, it’s not simply enough to ignore the passages which contradict your theology. I have asked you several times to explain what Paul means in Philippians, and all you’re really able to say is that he definitely doesn’t mean what it he appears to be saying! I’m often told the same thing by Sola Fide Christians when I quote James’ epistle where he says that we’re definitely not saved by faith alone*! You have to wonder if your interpretation is correct if you have to keep saying that a passage doesn’t mean what it *seems to be saying… THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS… Regarding Philippians, I have asked you two questions which you haven’t even attempted to answer. Firstly, what’s to “work out” my salvation*? If is a one-time forensic act, that makes no sense. Secondly, *why should this be done with “fear and trembling”*? If justification is already complete and irrevocable, this makes no sense. I’m happy for you to answer these questions from *within the context of your theological framework – I just don’t see how it can possibly make Paul fit. THE ROMAN ROAD… You’re said that if Philippians is taken in isolation, that then Catholic theology is indeed correct. Well, let’s take a look at the other passages you quote, and see if they fit with Catholic theology. If they do fit, then you should embrace Catholicism because it makes sense of all the data, whereas your own system can’t make sense of some of the things Paul says… The verse you first cite is Romans 3:21: “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it…” I don’t see the problem here. Paul says that God’s righteousness has been shown, even outside of the Mosaic Law, although the Old Testament testifies to it. How does this not fit with Catholic theology? You then cite Romans 3:24: “…they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus”. Again, I don’t see how this is at odds with Catholic theology. We also agree that initial justification is a gift through the work of Christ. The Counsel of Trent speaks to this very clearly. You skipped over Romans 2:6-8, however, which speaks very clearly that good works done in Christ are necessary for attaining eternal life: “For [God] will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life…” You then cite Romans 3:28: “For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.”. Once again, I don’t see the difficulty! Paul was dealing with the Judaizsers (Romans 2:28-29) who taught that belief in Christ and obedience to the New Covenant wasn’t enough to be saved. They said that you must also keep the Moasic Law and be circumcised. Paul rejected this, saying that the Christian is justified by faith (note that he doesn’t say “faith alone”) and not by the Mosaic Law. The Catholic Church agrees! Next, you point to Romans 4:1-5 and the example of Abraham: “What then shall we say about Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.’ Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due. And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.” Once again I’m not really sure why you think this supports your case. As we’ve seen, the context of Paul’s discussion is about the New Covenant supersedes the Old, meaning that one doesn’t have to fulfill the demands of the Old Covenant such as circumcision. The verses right after this confirm it: “Is this blessing pronounced only upon the circumcised, or also upon the uncircumcised? We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.” Once again, the Catholic Church agrees. It seems to me that you take these passages out of their historical context, which is the debate with the Judaizers and the question of the Mosaic Law. I think what you’re doing is seeing the words “works” and “law”, you substituting them with “all good deeds regardless of context”. You also conflate initial justification and continued justification in order to fit the theology you’ve been taught. I would submit that reading these passages in context and getting rid of your theological assumption about justification will yield a far more coherent understanding of the text. It will then easily harmonize with Philippians and, not only that, but also with the rest of Romans! We’ve already talked about Romans 2:7-8, but Catholic theology also harmonizes with Romans 6:16, which speaks about obedience leading to righteousness (how is that possible if it was a one-time forensic act?). Catholic theology speaks about righteous works done *in Christ*, as does Paul in Romans 8:1-14, and Catholic theology emphasizes the necessity of remaining in the grace of Christ, which Paul also talks about in Romans 11:22 (again, how is that possible if salvation cannot be lost?). WHAT PAUL ALSO SAID… What I said early isn’t strictly true, you did offer a brief comment about Philippians. You said that the “working out” in Philippians is similar to 2 Peter 1:10 where Peter says “Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall”. I don’t think this helps your case. I would say that Peter is talking about an increase in justification. In contrast, you say that “No man can actually contribute to their calling and election” and that it’s “exhortative language”, but what then does it actually mean for me to make my election “sure”? I make a building “sure” by adding supports to make sure it doesn’t fall down. I make a marriage “sure” by loving my wife. It rather sounds like Peter is not only saying that (a) I can cooperate with the grace of Christ to increase my justification, it sounds like (b) if I don’t make my salvation sure (not St. Peter says “if”) my salvation can be lost! Once again we have very Catholic-sounding theology, which you have to radically reinterpret and use Romans 3 to “fix” the obvious meaning of this passage. You ask “If salvation is having eternal life, how can a man lose something that is eternal?” My answer is that it is the life which we’re receiving is eternal. It’s the very life of God, but that doesn’t mean that it necessarily has to remain with us forever. St. Peter says that we have become partakers of the Divine Nature. However, that doesn’t mean that we necessarily remain partakers – we can be cut from the Vine. We must therefore work out our salvation with fear and trembling, nurturing the life which has been given to us and produce fruit. We also have the option of neglecting that life and killing it. I’ll again refer you back to Romans 2:6-8: “For [God] will render to every man according to his works… for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.” You ended by quoting Ephesians 1:13 where Paul speaks about the believers being sealed with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is indeed a guarantee of our inheritance, but only if we comply with God’s plan, as mentioned in Ephesians 2:10: “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” What happens if we don’t walk in them? This imagery in Ephesians alludes to the Exodus. Christians are sealed with the spirit in similar way to the Israelites being marked with the blood of the Passover lamb. However, that is not the end of the story… The Israelites still passed through the water and ate the supernatural food….but what then happened? As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10, they all perished! St. Paul warns his Christian readers that, despite passing through the waters of baptism and eating the supernatural Eucharist, they must persevere to the end in obedience, learning the lesson of the ancient Israelites since these Old Testament events “were written down for our instruction, upon whom the end of the ages has come. Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.”

Me

When it comes to salvation, I’m a calvinist. Ultimately your theology is denying what happened on the cross. You are distorting what it means to be justified. When a man is justified it means they are declared innocent in the ‘court of God’. All sins (past, present, future) have been fully punished, and the debt is paid. Your belief system dictates that the Christian can keep falling into a ‘debt’ status after their debt was paid. This is double jeopardy and would make God unjust. We can go back and forth on verses, you know my stance on the key verses. Hopefully you will repent and turn to the true gospel and flee from works religion.

Wesley

In your response you’re basically admitting that your theology won’t let you look at what the text actually says … Look at my last reply – I could interact with ALL of the passages you quoted and showed how they all fit very neatly into Catholic theology. No difficulty at all when read in context. In contrast, you’ve been unable to answer some very basic questions about the texts. The reason you’ve had such difficulty is not because the texts use obscure Greek phrases, but simply because they don’t fit with Calvinism. As I said before, you really should start wondering about your interpretative framework if you have to keep saying that a passage doesn’t mean what it seems to be saying. It’s a sign that precedence is being given to the (16th Century) traditions of men, rather than to the Word of God. In your response, you outline the basic notions of Calvinism, but you didn’t demonstrate their veracity …. You assert that at justification all future sins are forgiven, yet this doesn’t even come close to squaring with what Christ said on the subject. You assert that the ability to lose one’s salvation would make God unjust, but you don’t explain why that would be the case. You tell me I’m “distorting what it means to be justified”, but you do realize that no Christian for well over a millennium held to this theological framework, right?

Me