Justification: By OUR works or CHRIST'S works?

[MoreCoffee]

Wrong, again no matter in what manner our hearts keep them, they are kept to the best of our ability, it is you who decieve by saying God didnt mean it for us when He said it

"Our hearts keep them" you say, poppycock. You do not keep them, you pretend to. Those who advocate keeping the feasts are deceiving others. They do not keep them. They want others to do what they themselves do not do because no one can do it now. There is no temple, no place to make the sacrifices and to priests to make them but even more telling there is nothing about them that pleases God. God does not want your sacrifices or your feast keeping. The holy scriptures say so. But those who advocate feast keeping try to get others to join them in their impious acts. (see Rom 13:8,9 & 3:21 & 7:6 & 13:8 & 13:10, 2 Cor 3:5,6 & 3:13,16 - Gal.2:12 & 3:2,3 & 3:5 & 3:10 & 3:11 & 3:19 & 3:23 & 3:24,25 & 4:31 & 5:2 & 5:3,4 & 5:18 - Eph 2:15 & 3:4,5 - Phil.3:8,9 - Col.2:14 & 2:16 & 2:20, Heb.8:7,8 & 10:20.)

 

[psalms 91]

OK whatever you choose to believe I am tired of going in circles bottom line God said to keep them not maybe not until, the only thing I will say is if you do keep them then recognoize that they point to Christ, maybe thats why God wanted Passover kept forever I dont know, just know that He siad it

 

[MoreCoffee]

OK whatever you choose to believe I am tired of going in circles bottom line God said to keep them not maybe not until, the only thing I will say is if you do keep them then recognoize that they point to Christ, maybe thats why God wanted Passover kept forever I dont know, just know that He siad it

Yet it is not keeping passover if it does not include the sacrifice of the passover lamb and eating its flesh with bitter herbs as the commandment says.

 

[TurtleHare]

How did this thread become about feasts since I thought it was about Jesus and how He justifies us and now people are turning to feasts, for what? Is that your salvation?

 

[psalms 91]

Nope, just what came up I guess. You can always take it back

 

[MoreCoffee]

How did this thread become about feasts since I thought it was about Jesus and how He justifies us and now people are turning to feasts, for what? Is that your salvation?

I reckon it went from works to specific works like keeping feasts and from their to a debate about why Christians do not keep them.

 

[Josiah]

I suppose the point is relevant, because the WORKS the "I'm-the-Savior-of-Me" folks insist save themselves are never exactly the ones GOD requires. Some ALWAYS get ignored (or more often, watered down until they aren't recognizable). I mean, if it's OUR works that are the definitive issue, then the "works" God requires is divine PERFECTION (Matthew 5:48), divine HOLINESS (1 Peter 1:16), perfect divine LOVE (John 13:34). If you aren't doing that.... perfectly, constantly... then you are NOT doing works GOD requires, you aren't being obedient, you are falling short, you are sinning. And of course, we are to love God with "ALL our heart and ALL our soul and ALL our mind." If you aren't, you aren't doing works that matter, you aren't doing works that can save you.

So.... since HONEST folks know the Bible is correct when it says that "NO ONE is righteous, no, not even one." "For ALL have sinned and fall short." "By works shall no one be justified" (Galatians 2:16). "If justification were through keeping the law then Christ died for no purpose" (Galatians 2:21). "No one will be justified in God's sight by his works" (Romans 3:20). HONEST folks know (and maybe even admit) they are NOT perfect, NOT holy. They do NOT love all as Christ did as He died for us on the Cross. THUS..... their clammering about how they are the savior of self.... how they are keeping the requirements of God... honesty mandates that they change what God requires.... make it easy..... watering it down, editing some stuff out, forgetting much of the law (because they KNOW they don't DO those things).

So, the "I'M-THE-SAVIOR-OF-ME" folks need to say, "well..... I sorta, kinda, in a way, perhaps..... keep SOME of the requirements..... well, occasionally.... or at least I WISH I did! SO, that means I'm OBEDIENCE, I'm fulfilling the Law, I'm DOING all that is commanded! I can be like the Pharisee in Jesus' parable rather than that pathetic publican! I don't need no Savior when I got ME, DOING what God requires! Well..... sorta..... kinda...... occasionally...... partly..... or at least I WISH I did..... sometimes..... maybe. What a good boy am I (YOU on the other hand)."



- Josiah





.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Since being made just depends on God grace no one can work their way into salvation. We are saved by grace. And since salvation involves being made righteous both in a legal sense and in reality no one can work their way into righteousness without grace preceding and following their every step and eventually it is grace that "will bring them home" to God.

 

[Josiah]

Since being made just depends on God grace no one can work their way into salvation. We are saved by grace. And since salvation involves being made righteous both in a legal sense and in reality no one can work their way into righteousness without grace preceding and following their every step and eventually it is grace that "will bring them home" to God.

See... as a former Catholic.... I realize what you posted here is going to be misunderstood. When you say "GRACE" in this context in an interdenominational forum, the word is going to be understood as mercy, God's UNEARNED, UNMERITED favor and gift. But as you know, that's NOT how Catholics (and Mormons) typically define it. They define as as "divine HELP, divine ASSISTANCE" or as our Catholic teachers specifically defined it for us, "like gas that God puts in your tank so that YOU can get YOURSELF where YOU need to get." (In fairness, Protestants have a SECONDARY meaning like that, but for Protestants, that meaning only applied in Sanctification, not justification). So, when a Catholic uses the word "grace" in the framework of justification, they are simply saying "God helps us save ourselves" or "we save ourselves but with the HELP of God." What you posted SOUNDS good to Protestants, but as a former Catholic, I know that what is meant is the opposite of how the Protestants here are going to understand it. I'll put the best construction on it and assume you don't mean to mislead (you don't seem the type to do that), you are just using the term in a CATHOLIC way (understandable) which leads to misunderstandings.

Now, you raise a fine point here. There IS a difference between the "works righteousness" or "I'M-THE-SAVIOR-OF-ME" folks. Catholics and Mormons give all the credit to God for their goody-goodiness, their meriting heaven, their right to boast because they could have done NONE of it (acceptable to God anyway) without God's empowering (what Catholics call "grace"). Informed Catholics and Mormons make quite a point of that. The "Evangelical" types seem to neglect this point.... although some credit the indwelling Holy Spirit for a bit of it anyway. But it's really the same point (just two variations). And they both are the result of confusing Law and Gospel, self and Christ, sanctification with justification. And yes, they both have the characteristic that I spoke of in my post above (which you "liked"). But I like the RCC/LDS version of it better, at least God is clearly credited with their wonderfulness and merit and worth, all quite clearly ... even though it's the same bottom line: I save me. MY perfect works are what gets me into heaven. And yes, it does get cranked out in a way that is shockingly void of even mentions of the Cross, the Blood.... shockingly Christless.



Important topic!


- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

See... as a former Catholic.... I wonder if you are being (no doubt unknowingly) deceptive here.

No, there's no deception here. What I wrote is derived from the statement of doctrines in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and from the 16th century Roman Catechism.

When you say "GRACE" in this context in an interdenominational forum, the word is going to be understood as mercy, God's UNEARNED, UNMERITED favor and gift.

Grace is more than mere unearned unmerited favour and gift. Grace is also gifts of every kind and for every situation and it is love and passionate love at that. It is God's self giving. It is elevation of human nature to participation in the Divine nature (2 Peter 1:4), in short it is greater than anything that words can express.

But as you know, that's NOT how Catholics (and Mormons) typically define it. They define as as "divine HELP, divine ASSISTANCE" or as our Catholic teachers specifically defined it for us, "like gas that God puts in your tank so that YOU can get YOURSELF where YOU need to get." (In fairness, Protestants have a SECONDARY meaning like that, but for Protestants, that meaning only applied in Sanctification, not justification). So, when a Catholic uses the word "grace" in the framework of justification, they are simply saying "God helps us save ourselves" or "we save ourselves but with the HELP of God." What you posted SOUNDS good to Protestants, but as a former Catholic, I know that what is meant is the opposite of how the Protestants here are going to understand it. I'll put the best construction on it and assume you don't mean to mislead (you don't seem the type to do that), you are just using the term in a CATHOLIC way (understandable) which leads to misunderstandings.

Now, you raise a fine point here. There IS a difference between the "works righteousness" or "I'M-THE-SAVIOR-OF-ME" folks. Catholics and Mormons give all the credit to God for their goody-goodiness, their meriting heaven, their right to boast because they could have done NONE of it (acceptable to God anyway) without God's empowering (what Catholics call "grace"). Informed Catholics and Mormons make quite a point of that. The "Evangelical" types seem to neglect this point.... although some credit the indwelling Holy Spirit for a bit of it anyway. But it's really the same point (just two variations). And they both are the result of confusing Law and Gospel, self and Christ, sanctification with justification. And yes, they both have the characteristic that I spoke of in my post above (which you "liked"). But I like the RCC/LDS version of it better, at least God is clearly credited with their wonderfulness and merit and worth, all quite clearly ... even though it's the same bottom line: I save me. MY perfect works are what gets me into heaven. And yes, it does get cranked out in a way that is shockingly void of even mentions of the Cross, the Blood.... shockingly Christless.



Important topic!


- Josiah

If you want a Catholic definition then here is one:

 

[Josiah]

See... as a former Catholic.... I realize what you posted here is going to be misunderstood. When you say "GRACE" in this context in an interdenominational forum, the word is going to be understood by Protestants as mercy, God's UNEARNED, UNMERITED favor and gift. But as you know, that's NOT how Catholics (and Mormons) typically define it. Catholics define it as as "divine HELP, divine ASSISTANCE" or as our Catholic teachers specifically defined it for us, "like gas that God puts in your tank so that YOU can get YOURSELF where YOU need to get." (In fairness, Protestants have a SECONDARY meaning like that, but for Protestants, that meaning only applied in Sanctification, not justification). So, when a Catholic uses the word "grace" in the framework of justification, they are simply saying "God helps us save ourselves" or "we save ourselves but with the HELP of God." What you posted SOUNDS good to Protestants, but as a former Catholic, I know that what is meant is the opposite of how the Protestants here are going to understand it. I'll put the best construction on it and assume you don't mean to mislead (you don't seem the type to do that), you are just using the term in a CATHOLIC way (understandable) which leads to misunderstandings.

Now, you raise a fine point here. There IS a difference between the "works righteousness" or "I'M-THE-SAVIOR-OF-ME" folks. Catholics and Mormons give all the credit to God for their goody-goodiness, their meriting heaven, their right to boast because they could have done NONE of it (acceptable to God anyway) without God's empowering (what Catholics call "grace"). Informed Catholics and Mormons make quite a point of that. The "Evangelical" types seem to neglect this point.... although some credit the indwelling Holy Spirit for a bit of it anyway. But it's really the same point (just two variations). And they both are the result of confusing Law and Gospel, self and Christ, sanctification with justification. And yes, they both have the characteristic that I spoke of in my post above (which you "liked"). But I like the RCC
/LDS version of it better, at least God is clearly credited with their wonderfulness and merit and worth, all quite clearly ... even though it's the same bottom line: I save me. MY perfect works are what gets me into heaven. And yes, it does get cranked out in a way that is shockingly void of even mentions of the Cross, the Blood.... shockingly Christless.



.

What I wrote is derived from the statement of doctrines in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and from the 16th century Roman Catechism.

Yes. And as you perhaps forget is that is NOT the definition Protestants use in this context. Which is why I posted what I did.

But yes, the difference is reflective of the two very different views of Justification (narrow): whether we look to the Cross or look in the mirror.

Grace is more than mere unearned unmerited favour and gift. Grace is also gifts of every kind and for every situation and it is love and passionate love at that.

I agree. But again, you document that you are confusing yourself with God, law with Gospel, sanctification with justification. Not all gifts of God are definitive in JUSTIFICATION (narrow). You come up with the "I'M-THE-SAVIOR-OF-ME" "OH-WHAT-A-GOOD-BOY-AM-I" soteriology by confusing these things.... and yes, makes Christ irrelevant or at most the "possibility maker" ("Christ open the gate to heaven but YOU gotta get YOURSELF through it" as our Catholic teachers taught us) or the "helper" ("None can save themselves by their own natural strength or ability, but Christ empowers us and we accomplish it by His strength").



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes. And as you perhaps forget is that is NOT the definition Protestants use in this context.

I am not a Protestant. I leave it to Protestants to define their own in-house terms. I have given you a definition from the Glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That is the one I use as a working definition. If yours differs then it is up to you to explain what "grace" means in your theology. I have already explained the meaning of "grace" in my theology.

 

[Josiah]

I agree, that's the CATHOLIC definition. Or as our teachers put it, "Grace is the 'gas' God puts in your 'tank' so that YOU can get to where YOU need to get." It's empowering, helping. And yes, it's entirely void of Christ, the Cross, the Blood, mercy.

My point was that you gave a response that traditional Protestants would likely agree with - only because they (and perhaps even you) don't realize that when you use the word "grace" you mean something nearly the opposite of what Protestants mean; your reply actually confirmed my point that in Catholicism, it's God HELPS you be the Savior of yourself. And yes, it's pretty Christless, Crossless, Bloodless, merciless.... it's about self getting so good that God just has to let us in (but YES, informed Catholics will eventually add, solely by God's empowering).





.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I agree, that's the CATHOLIC definition. ...

Excellent. And since that is exactly what I portrayed it as the matter is fully and properly dealt with. What your theology teaches is not a matter for me to advocate. I do not agree with it.

 

[Josiah]

Excellent. And since that is exactly what I portrayed it as the matter is fully and properly dealt with. What your theology teaches is not a matter for me to advocate. I do not agree with it.

Thus my point all along: What you posted would be misunderstood by Protestants.... it would SEEM good and right, but what you mean is pretty much the antithesis of what they would read. I only "translated" your comments so that Protestants would realize you are NOT saying what they presume, you are saying the opposite.

And yes, you confirmed the aspect I mentioned: that the Catholic position in this context is remarkably Christless, Crossless, Bloodless, merciless - it's all about goody, goody ME.


I'm glad you realize the point of my post(s) in this discussion with you.



Pax


- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

Thus my point all along: What you posted would be misunderstood by Protestants....

If some do not bother reading what I write and do not care what definition I posted then that is a matter for them. I am not a Protestant and am not going to be posting Protestant theology. You are not a Baptist will you be posting Baptist theology about baptism and church membership and church government and the Lord's supper?

 

[psalms 91]

I would hope that what is posted isnt double speak

 

[MoreCoffee]

I would hope that what is posted isn't double speak

It ought not to be doubletalk but Josiah appears to want my posts to be more Protestant and less Catholic and that sounds like he wants me to offer doubletalk.

 

[Josiah]

It ought not to be doubletalk but Josiah appears to want my posts to be more Protestant and less Catholic and that sounds like he wants me to offer doubletalk.

No. Just not deceptive (however unintentional).

 

[MoreCoffee]

No. Just not deceptive (however unintentional).

It would be a deception to offer "protestant definitions" in a Catholic's posts. Your proposal is far too your-ego-centric to be honest.

The definition of Grace & Justification that I use are: