Is Justification a Process?
July 14th, 2007
(By Nathan Williams)
A couple weeks ago I wrote on the biblical definition of justification. I believe it is vital to understand that, biblically-speaking, justification is a declaration of righteousness given by God concerning man. This past week I have been studying the doctrine of justification in preparation for a speaking opportunity on the topic of the Roman Catholic Church. I had been somewhat familiar with the Catholic Church before, but recently have grown in my understanding of the differences between Catholic and Protestant views of justification. It has always been confusing to me why so many Protestants are quick to link arms with Catholics and act as if there is little to no difference between the two systems. I have been challenged again that there is a substantial difference and that Luther did not protest in vain.
One of the major differences comes when the Catholic Church teaches that justification is initiated at baptism and that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. Here is a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“Baptism as an infant cleanses from original sin, removes other sin and its punishment, provides justification in an initial form, provides spiritual rebirth or regeneration, and is ‘necessary for salvation.’”
It is interesting to note that this quote says that baptism provides justification in its initial form. This leads to another major difference in the two views of justification. Catholics believe that justification begins at the moment of baptism, but that it is not complete until the person actually becomes righteous before God. They deny a forensic declaration of righteousness and insist that justification is a process and not a position before God. Within such a system, it makes perfect sense to speak of the inception and increase of justification. It is something the sinner must work at throughout his or her life on earth. Those who have been baptized “work for eternal life by means of love-inspired virtues that are the fruit of the divine grace infused in the soul” (Lewis & Demarest, Integrative Theology).
Because of this, the typical Roman Catholic bases his salvation on his own level of sanctification (what God is presently doing in him), and not what Christ did for him on the cross. Because of this belief, those in the Catholic Church hold to the idea of “merit of worthiness.” Basically this means that free moral acts which are done in the state of grace earn merit before God.
Another major difference in the two views is that, according to the Catholic Church, justification can be lost and regained. (This of course fits with the idea that justification is a process.) Any time a Catholic commits a mortal sin he loses his justification but can regain it back again by performing the sacrament of penance. This sacrament involves contrition, confession, satisfaction, and absolution. If the process of justification is not completed here on earth, the sinner must spend years in purgatory being purified of any remaining sins.
But how does the Roman Catholic understanding of justification line up with Scripture? Can justification be rightly viewed as a process that can be lost and then regained by good works? No way.
The reason we need a forensic declaration of righteousness is because our sins have condemned us before God. God has examined the human race and has found us guilty before Him. Romans 1:18 explains that God’s wrath is revealed against all unrighteousness and ungodliness. Romans 3:23 informs us that we have all fallen short of the glory of God. There is no way we can live up to the standard of absolute holiness that He has set. It is impossible.
The question to ask is: Can the guilty justify themselves? NO! When we attempt to merit God’s saving grace we have destroyed the very essence of grace. Grace is God’s unmerited favor and there is no way humans can ever earn grace. If we were to come to God with all our good works in hand and seek to exchange them for a home in heaven, we would still fall well short of the perfect standard God has set. Romans 4:4-5 says that “…to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.” This idea is echoed in Romans 11:6: “If it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.”
The point of this article is to remind and encourage Christians that justification is not a process we must pursue. It is something that has been secured once-for-all by the Lord Jesus Christ. Those who attempt to earn a right standing before God through their own good works are attempting the impossible. No one can merit His righteousness. And that is why we thank God for the perfect life and substitutionary death of His Son Jesus Christ. Without His life and death imputed to us we would still be lost in our sins, standing guilty before a holy God, with nothing but the filthy rags of human works.
Now that the Pope has finally chimed in on ECT, it should leave a good number of the E’s holding a smoldering document, looking around and wondering “What just happened?” There was a time, about two weeks ago, when a good number of them were looking down their noses at us, who refused to sign (both E’s AND C’s), saying: “Yeah? Well watch this!!”
Well-stated, Nathan. Keep up the good works!
Walter Heaton
This doctrine is a fascinating one; the implications of how you interpret the biblical definition of this word to be, are some of the weightiest. Thanks very much for writing on it.
Kristine
This was a great article. The idea of ‘earning favor’ or ‘meriting righteousness’ unfortunately can slip itself inside some “Christian” churches. At least its sad to see in the Christian churches by me.
I do however, have a question about the ‘Playing out’ of Justification in the believer’s life. It has to do with the idea of ‘Continual forgiveness of Sin’ and why our prayers must be filled with asking forgiveness when at the moment of our salvation we were forgiven past, present, and future. Instead of responding on the blog you can answer back to my email (that I am assuming the author can see).
Why do we have to…or do we have to continue to repent of our sin and confess to Christ the sins we have recently committed if we are already justified? I did a word search for both of these words (confession/confess and repentance/repent) and saw that Scripture seemed to only use them as salvation words. It seems as if the 1 John 1.9 is taken from a ‘Catholic’ perspective of the continual penance to God because isn’t that verse only used in regards to pre-salvation?????
In understanding repentnace in salvation, I am turning from my former life of sin and know in faith as I am turning away from sin in trusting Christ. It is at that point we are justified. Sins are then forgiven from the past and the future sins I have yet to commit. I now have the righteousness of Christ given to me and God sees me pure, blameless, holy, etc. Now as a believer and follower of Christ, submitting to the Lorship of Christ Jesus and Hating sin….what should my response to sin be? If I have been justified, do I need to ask for forgiveness?…do I just repent of my sin (only a turning from to a turning to)?….or when I ask forgiveness again it is not in the same way as in I was first saved? So then therefore does forgiveness have two different meanings for an unbeliever and a beliver (a semantics issue)????
Maybe this isn’t that big of deal, but it is something I am getting tripped up over. Thank you
Well done, Nate, and my thoughts from earlier this week, Walter. I have a request that you stay on this topic and go a layer closer to home.
I would like to see you bring to this forum the subject of NPP (New Perspective on Paul) even though it was here before the change in format of Pulpit to what it is now. NPP advocates are bringing essentially a Roman Catholic doctrine of justification into evangelicalism.
Just this month I read the alumni publication from the seminary I attended, which includes waffling on the historicity of the NT and it cited favorably one of the main scholars associated with NPP. The strange sound I heard was the seminary’s founders rolling over in their graves.
NPP is seeping in to evangelicalism and will gain a foothold unless we are alerted early. It has done great damage in my region, partly because I did not know how to recognize it until it was too late to head it off.
Keep up the good work! Pulpit is a great resource.
Jude 24-25,
Jim Harris
I believe confession of sin restores fellowship with God, with the Holy Spirit. Your relationship with God is secure by the blood of Christ and never changes but to have intimacy with God we must confess and acknowledge our sin and agree with God when He specifically points something out that is wrong. It’s simply taking responsibility before God and man and even setting an example.
About NPP, it’s so similar to this day and age of questioning everything: did people really walk on the moon,Gospel acc. to Judas, Gnostics were true Christians and some other postmodern ideas that have crept into the church.
.
Anyway, good article. This is my first time on this blog, and I’ll be coming back for some more biblical wisdom
To Joseph: “Confession” simply means to view our sin just as God does, to be in agreement with him. The moment we confess our sin, we are forgiven. Asking forgiveness is for our benefit emotionally, but I do not believe it is required of us in order for God to forgive us.
I’ve been thinking a lot about this topic lately…
Been wondering what is the “minimum” requirements to be saved? Can a Roman Catholic truly believe that Jesus Christ died for their sins and rose from the dead and not justification by faith?
Do you have to believe in Justification by faith? I think yes, but can you verbally say you don’t believe in it, yet be saved?
My thoughts as of now are if you do not believe in sola fide you effectively do not believe the “Jesus Christ died for you sins” part.
Also, do you have to believe in the Trinity? I mean Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria had strange beliefs on the Trinity God’s nature and Jesus Christ’s equality with the Father. They also believed in basically libertarian free will, which pretty much negates justification by faith sorta… [My sources are Dr. John Frame’s lectures on philosophy] I mean these guys believed Greek philosophers like Plato were saved. But they did believe that Jesus Christ died for their sins and rose from the 3rd day. Perhaps God had mercy on these Ante-Nicene fathers.
PS I do think they were genuine Christians most of their writing (and most def. their life) leads me to believe so.
Nathan,
Thank you for at least referring to Catholic sources for your initial source, but you have taken them out of context and misrepresented (not purposely) them. Please allow me to attempt to clarify some misrepresentations.
First off, the reformed view that several wings of Protestantism hold to concerning that justification is a “one time event” and the believer is “eternally secured” was unheard of prior to the “reformation”. Scripture and the fathers are consistent in teaching that salvation is a marathon (process) and not a ten- yard dash.
Phil 2:12 - work out your salvation with fear and trembling
1Pet 1:9 - as you attain the goal of your faith, salvation
Mt 10:22 - he who endures to the end will be saved
Mt 24:1 - he who perseveres to the end will be saved
Rom 13:11 - salvation is nearer now than first believed
1Cor 9:27 - drive body for fear of being disqualified
1Cor 10:11-12 - those thinking they are secure may fall
2Tim 2:11-13 - must hold out to the end to reign with Christ
2Cor 4:16 — our inner nature is being renewed “day by day.”
Mt 7:21 - not everyone saying “Lord, Lord” will inherit
Rom 11:22 - remain in his kindness or you will be cut off
Gal 5:4 - separated from Christ, you’ve fallen from grace
Heb 6:4-6 - describes sharers in Holy Spirit who then fall away
Heb 10:26-27 - if sin after receiving truth, judgment remains
Read a more complete dissertation below:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a126.htm#Ongoing
Baptismal regeneration from scripture:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a25.htm
You said:
This sacrament involves contrition, confession, satisfaction, and absolution. If the process of justification is not completed here on earth, the sinner must spend years in purgatory being purified of any remaining sins.
**I say:
Justification does not and cannot continue after death. At death we are met by Christ and are judged immediately (the particular judgment). We are either going to Heaven or hell. All those who go to Purgatory are going to Heaven, but need to “clean up” a little since “nothing unclean” can enter heaven as the book of Revelation states (Rev. 21:27).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states the following about Purgatory:
1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.
Patrick Madrid goes into great detail in the link below:
http://www.envoymagazine.com/PlanetEnvoy/Special-PurgatoryEmergencyRoom1.htm
You said:
There is no way we can live up to the standard of absolute holiness that He has set. It is impossible.
**I say:
You are correct. It is impossible without the grace of God. We can do nothing on our own. Jesus says it well in John 15:5, “without me you can do nothing”.
Grace: What It Is and What It Does
http://www.catholic.com/library/grace_what_it_is.asp
Both Luther and Calvin believed that water baptism was necessary for justification. The issue for them was the idea that one must then continue to receive absolution from a priest and through works. They rightly taught this is not found in Scripture. Indeed, Peter told Simon to pray to the Lord, not to him, in order to be restored (Acts 8:22). Simon was a baptized believer (8:13).
Re: purgatory, Rev. 21:27 teaches the very opposite. The last part of the verse makes that clear.
Jim:
“NPP advocates are bringing essentially a Roman Catholic doctrine of justification into evangelicalism.”
Care to prove that from quotes by Hays, Dunn, Sanders, or Wright?
Miroslav:
“About NPP, it’s so similar to this day and age of questioning everything: did people really walk on the moon,Gospel acc. to Judas, Gnostics were true Christians and some other postmodern ideas that have crept into the church.”
It’s interesting that you say that…since the leading proponent of the NP(s)P is a leading Jesus scholar who just wrote a compelling book against the Gospel of Judas (Judas and the Gospel of Jesus), deals striking blows to Gnosticism in both Jesus and the Victory of God and The Resurrection of the Son of God, and dismisses postmodernism outright in Part I of The New Testament and the People of God.
In other words, the NPP is not similar at all to any of those that you mentioned.
Gerry, Hebrews 10:14 says, “For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.” If I have been made perfect forever by one sacrifice, what is left for my perfection? I am being made outwardly holy by growing in obedience through the working of the Holy Spirit, but have been made inwardly perfect, thus acceptable to God.
jsb,
Mt 9:6 Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth
Mt 9:8 glorified God who had given such authority to human beings (plural)
Jn 20:23 - Jesus gives His authority to forgive sins to Apostles “whose sins you forgive/retain are forgiven/retained”
Jn 20:22 - breathed on them, “receive Holy Spirit” [recall Gn 2:7]
2Cor 5:18 - given us the ministry of reconciliation
2Cor 5:19- entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
2Cor 5:20- So we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us
Jam 5:13-15 - sick? summon priest, anointed and sins forgiven
Mt 18:18 - whatever you bind & loose on earth, so it is in heaven
Mt 3:6- as “they acknowledged their sins”
Mt 3:8- Produce good fruit as evidence of your repentance
1Jn 5:6 - there is sin that is not deadly
1Cor 11:27- whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord
1Cor 11:28 A person should examine himself (examination of conscience) before recieving body/blood
Acts 19:18- Many of those who had become believers came forward and openly acknowledged their former practices
Early Christian writings are clear about confesssion:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Confession.asp
(Sampling of above link)
The Didache
“Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure” (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).
Tertullian
“[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness” (Repentance 10:1 [A.D. 203]).
Hippolytus
“[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop shall pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Pour forth now that power which comes from you, from your royal Spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and which he bestowed upon his holy apostles . . . and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your holy flock and to serve without blame as your high priest, ministering night and day to propitiate unceasingly before your face and to offer to you the gifts of your holy Church, and by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command” (Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215]).
Origen
“[A final method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, ‘I said, “To the Lord I will accuse myself of my iniquity”’” (Homilies on Leviticus 2:4 [A.D. 248]).
Basil the Great
“It is necessary to confess our sins to those to whom the dispensation of God’s mysteries is entrusted. Those doing penance of old are found to have done it before the saints. It is written in the Gospel that they confessed their sins to John the Baptist [Matt. 3:6], but in Acts [19:18] they confessed to the apostles” (Rules Briefly Treated 288 [A.D. 374]).
Ambrose of Milan
“For those to whom [the right of binding and loosing] has been given, it is plain that either both are allowed, or it is clear that neither is allowed. Both are allowed to the Church, neither is allowed to heresy. For this right has been granted to priests only” (Penance 1:1 [A.D. 388]).
You also mentioned Rev 21:27 as against purgatory..let’s look again..
27 but nothing unclean will enter it, nor any (one) who does abominable things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
How is this against it? Are you referring to names written in the book of life? It doesn’t mean they don’t need any “cleaning up”. So I guess that of all the names in the book of life none have lied? Since we all have lied and done abominable things we are forgiven by Our Father through Christ, but must be chastised for doing them. Proverbs 13:24 states “He who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him takes care to chastise him.”
St. Augustine put it well below:
“Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter, but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment” (The City of God 21:13 [A.D. 419]).
“That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire” (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69 [A.D. 421]).
Dennis,
You said:
Gerry, Hebrews 10:14 says, “For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.” If I have been made perfect forever by one sacrifice, what is left for my perfection? I am being made outwardly holy by growing in obedience through the working of the Holy Spirit, but have been made inwardly perfect, thus acceptable to God.
**I say: context, context..
A little further down in the same chapter in verses 26 and 27 he also states:
26 If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins.
27 but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.
And in verse 24 he states: “We must consider how to rouse one another to love and good works”
36 You need endurance to do the will of God and receive what he has promised
38 But my just one shall live by faith, and if he draws back I take no pleasure in him.”
Gerry,
Did you just forget these, or purposely distort the context? The context is all of Scripture, not just selected passages
For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus…So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure…Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
We remember the Lord himself said, “Sanctify them by the Truth, your Word is Truth…and to the disciples he said…You are already clean because of the Word that I have spoken to you….”
Gerry, it is time that you take your hands off the finished work of God. Touching the Ark is death.
Christ’s work is perfect and complete, already. The teleotes is our perfection. Thanks be to God who through Jesus Christ has given us, has past tense, eternal life. The only ones who have to fear is the reprobate for God has not given us the spirit of the world so that we fear, but the Spirit of boldness, and of a sound mind, the Spirit of adoption, signed, sealed and delivered in the blood of the Lamb, where by we can truly enter into his presence now having escaped the judgement that is coming upon the sons of disobedience.
May God deliver you from your bondage.
tt
I absolutely love reading all these posts. Great discussion and thanks for always keeping it civil, y’all.
Gerry,
Since you’ve obviously considered the rest of chapter 10 of Hebrews, what do you do with the last verse:
“But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.” (v. 39)
This isn’t speaking of “purgatory”…it’s speaking of hell. And the inspired writer says, with confidence, that they are not of those who shrink back (Mt. 13:20-22).
Context, context…
Gerry, you conveniently ignored the earliest example in church history that we have, the example of Peter himself with Simon in Acts 8:9-24. Please see my previous comment and tell me what you make of the passage. Peter taught personal confession between man and God. And the fact that Simon asked Peter to pray FOR him shows the perversion of that teaching.
A perversion which was later consummated by the Catholic church:
“Two perversions of Scripture were the largest factors in developing the theory of meritorious penance. The first was the false interpretation of John 20:23, “Whosoever sins ye forgive they are forgiven, and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained.” The passage was interpreted to mean that Christ conferred upon the Apostles and the Church judicial authority to forgive sins. The Protestant theory is that this authority is declarative. The second factor was the Vulgate’s translation of the New Testament for the word “repent,” poenitentiam agite, “do penance,” as if repentance were a meritorious external exercise, and not a change of disposition, which is the plain meaning of the Greek word μετανοέω, “to change your mind.” Schaff, History of the Christian Church
Having problems posting??
Gerry,
Sorry I haven’t been able to post on this thread…Things have been busy with family in town. I do want to respond to something you said in your first comment and I’ll get to it later this evening or tomorrow hopefully. Thanks to all for the good discussion!
Nate Williams
Nate,
Sorry, I meant I was having problems posting more than a sentence. I’ll try it again.
I’ll try smaller posts..
Thomas,
I’m glad that you speak of the totality of scripture and not just selective passages even though you just did the same thing writing them out but just not naming the chap/verses;-)
Let’s look at some of the scripture verses you quote from.
1) Phil 1:6, I am confident of this, that the one who began a good work in you will continue to complete it until the day of Christ Jesus.
We also see in verses 9 and 10 of the same chapter:
9 And this is my prayer: that your love may increase ever more and more in knowledge and every kind of perception,
10 to discern what is of value, so that you may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ.
** “That you MAY BE pure and blameless for the day of Christ” (judgment day). It doesn’t say ARE pure and blameless. Doesn’t sound like eternal security to me..
2)Phil 2:12-13, So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling.
13 For God is the one who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work
** Absolutely God, the holy Spirit, works in us to desire and work, but we must respond to His grace. Again, “fear and trembling” doesn’t sound like eternal security to me.
Cont’d…
Thomas, JSB and Keith,
I would like to answer your comments (I have answers prepared), but I am having difficulty posting consistently. I will try again later..Thanks for the dialogue.
JSB,
I love the dialogue, but it must be a two way street. I have and will continue to post answers to your comments, but I would expect the same in return. You seem to like answers to your questions, but do not reply to mine.
You have conveniently overlooked the ample biblical evidence and practice of penance/confession by the early Christian writings that I have supplied. Mere Protestant “theories” hold no water whatsoever. Also, if your “theory” of the wrong Vulgate (latin) translation written circa 398 A.D. of John 20:23 is to be believable at all, then how again would you explain the biblical evidence and the clear practice of the sacrament well BEFORE 398 A.D?? Interesting to note that the fathers quote John 20:23 in the exact same context FOR the authority to forgive sins by Christ before 398. Example below:
John Chrysostom
“Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.’ Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ he says, ‘they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men [Matt. 10:40; John 20:21–23]. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven” (The Priesthood 3:5 [A.D. 387]).
http://www.catholic.com/library/Confession.asp
More later..
Gerry, the earliest evidence we have is Acts 8. It proves the very opposte of your view. And since it’s actually in Scripture, it is the best evidence. It is, therefore, dispositive. That means ALL of the church fathers whom you cite to the contrary are wrong, teaching contra Peter’s direction in Acts 8.
So I’ve dealt with all your cites. Now you can take a stab at Acts 8, if you please.
If not, thanks anyway for the dialogue.
JSB,
Again, I have cited numerous scriptural passages in my previous posts which I’ll include again below, yet you cling to one verse which doesn’t prove anything. I think these verses are early enough for you;-)
Mt 9:6 Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth
Mt 9:8 glorified God who had given such authority to human beings (plural)
Jn 20:23 - Jesus gives His authority to forgive sins to Apostles “whose sins you forgive/retain are forgiven/retained”
Jn 20:22 - breathed on them, “receive Holy Spirit” [recall Gn 2:7]
2Cor 5:18 - given us the ministry of reconciliation
2Cor 5:19- entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
2Cor 5:20- So we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us
Jam 5:13-15 - sick? summon priest, anointed and sins forgiven
Mt 18:18 - whatever you bind & loose on earth, so it is in heaven
Mt 3:6- as “they acknowledged their sins”
Mt 3:8- Produce good fruit as evidence of your repentance
1Jn 5:6 - there is sin that is not deadly
1Cor 11:27- whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord
1Cor 11:28 A person should examine himself (examination of conscience) before recieving body/blood
Acts 19:18- Many of those who had become believers came forward and openly acknowledged their former practices
Since you don’t like my selection of fathers that concur with Catholic doctorine, please give me the names of the father/s that you do agree with..
Gerry,
May I take a stab at it? I don’t think ANY of those verses prove the requirement of penance/confession to a priest.
Mt. 9:6,8 — Jesus, not “men”, was forgiving sins. No other men in this section forgave sins. It is obvious that the crowds saw Jesus as a man and therefore marveled at “men” being given this authority. Further, in context, the authority that the crowds were marveling about seems to be the healing (WOW!), not the forgiving(not wow…to them) of sins. They didn’t “see” the forgiveness.
Jn. 20:22-23 — Jesus says, “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them,” not “they are” or “they will be” forgiven. This shows that the sins have been previously forgiven. It is the ability of the believer to make a declarative statement about an existing condition with regards to a person’s forgiveness due to repentance (or the opposite).
2 Cor. 5:18-20 — Completely taken out of context, and even out of context doesn’t back up your position. Paul clearly states in v.18 that God reconciled us to Himself. This is done through the word of reconciliation (v. 19), i.e. the Gospel. And in case you still can’t get it, he sums it up again in v.21! He is speaking of SALVATION, not penance or confession to Paul.
Is there need that I continue? I think I’ll stop for now. I would throw a list of out of context verses down for you to respond to, but how about just one passage?
“Therefore He [Jesus] is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through HIM, since HE always lives to make intercession for them. For it was fitting for us to have such hight priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did ONCE FOR ALL when He offered up Himself.” Heb. 7:25-27
There is no continual sacrifice and no penance for the forgiveness of sins…”it is finished.”
Gerry, Scripture interprets Scripture, and the best commentary on this issue is what Peter commands in Acts 8. You’ve been given several opportunities to comment on it, yet have failed to engage it. This is quite telling in a debate. We’ll let the readers decide from here.
Again, thanks.
jsb and Keith,
Where does scripture say that “scripture interprets scripture”? That is another one of your “theories”. I see in 2 Peter 1:20
20 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,
21 for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.
2 Peter 3:15
15 And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,
16 speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.
Since there is only ONE Holy Spirit there can only be ONE valid interpretation that is also validated by consistent belief seen in both the writings and practice of early Christians until today. Can either of you find an early father that validates your negation of the practice of confession, since I can back mine up.??..
“Since you don’t like my selection of fathers that concur with Catholic doctorine, please give me the names of the father/s that you do agree with.”
Peter.
Gerry,
You said:
“Where does scripture say that “scripture interprets scripture”? That is another one of your “theories”.”
I never said that, actaully. But since you asked…
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
A few things here. First, the word “comparing” means to judge one thing in connection with another. Next, teaching should come from the Holy Spirit’s teaching (through scripture), not from the wisdom of men (v. 13). Finally, v. 14 might give you a little insight into why you consider these Biblical doctrines as “theories.”
Also, you said:
“Can either of you find an early father that validates your negation of the practice of confession, since I can back mine up.??..”
Doesn’t scripture kinda “one up” the quotes from men? Just a thought:
“1Jn 2:26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”
Not that the teaching of godly men isn’t important (it is), but we don’t have to depend on it for our source of truth.
On a side note, I, too, am still interested to see how you will respond to Acts 8.
Keith,
I have no problem answering Acts 8 at all. I just find it interesting that you both have a death grip on this one verse when are so many more that I’ve shown that prove it..
OK, here it goes..We see in 1 John 5:16-17 the following:
16 If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray.
17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly
Scripture clearly shows that there is a difference between mortal (deadly) sin that separates us from God and minor venial sins that wound our relationship with God to a lesser degree.
The Catholic Church teaches that mortal (deadly) sins must be confessed to a priest, but the venials sins we commit each day can be confessed directly to God..
Since Peter in Acts 8 tells Simon Magus to pray to God then he obviously sees this as a venial sin that will be forgiven.
Looking at 1 John 5, he is saying that you cannot pray about deadly (mortal) sin. Does that mean that once you have committed a mortal sin you are lost forever??
As I stated before, I can show that the Catholic interpretation that I speak of was believed from the beginning from both biblical foundations to the writings of the fathers until today. Since you cannot prove that your interpretation is not anything other than a novelty until the 1500’s I think that says it all..
Oops, Gerry, it is quite clear that Simon’s sin also led to death. In your terms, it would be mortal.
Look at verse 20: “May your money perish with you.”
Perish. Death. Mortal. (Unless, of course, you don’t accept Peter’s authority)
And no confession to Peter commanded. Confession to God.
jsb,
What about when Peter said to “repent and pray to Lord”. Peter did not say that Simon Magus was lost or he wouldn’t have said that. You can see that Simon Magus did repent when he said below “pray for me to the Lord”.
22 Repent of this wickedness of yours and pray to the Lord that, if possible, your intention may be forgiven.
23 For I see that you are filled with bitter gall and are in the bonds of iniquity.”
24 Simon said in reply, “Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.”
In order for a sin to be mortal, it must meet three conditions:
Mortal sin is a sin of grave matter
Mortal sin is committed with full knowledge of the sinner
Mortal sin is committed with deliberate consent of the sinner
This means that mortal sins cannot be done “accidentally.” A person who commits a mortal sin is one who knows that their sin is wrong, but still deliberately commits the sin anyway. This means that mortal sins are “premeditated” by the sinner and thus are truly a rejection of God’s law and love.
The first condition, that a mortal sin is of grave matter, means that certain premeditated offenses against God are more severe than others. We know that some sins are graver than others (e.g. it is a graver sin to murder someone than to lie to someone). St. John tells us, “If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.” (1 John 5:16-17). Thus St. John distinguishes between mortal and venial sin. Jesus also warns us that “Anyone who does not remain in me will be thrown out like a branch and wither; people will gather them and throw them into a fire and they will be burned” (John 15:6).
What kinds of offenses against God constitute “grave matter”?
In the Bible, St. Paul gives us a list of grave sins. He states that anyone who commits these sins shall not enter the kingdom of God. “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:19-20). Paul also tells the Corinthians, “know you no that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards nor railers, nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). These sins constitute grave matter, and if they are committed willingly and with full consent, constitute mortal sin.
The Church also tells us that the sins of anger, blasphemy, envy, hatred, malice, murder, neglect of Sunday obligation, sins against faith (incredulity against God or heresy), sins against hope (obstinate despair in the hope for salvation and/or presumption that oneself can live without God or be saved by one’s own power) and sins against love (indifference towards charity, ingratitude, and/or hatred of God) also constitute grave matter. This list of grave sins, is based on Jesus Christ’s interpretation of the gravity of the Ten Commandments. Grave sins can be classed as sins against God, neighbor and self, and can further be divided into carnal and spiritual sins (CCC 1853).
Four other sins are considered grave also. These sins not only offend God, but men as well. Thus these four sins are called “the sins that cry to heaven for vengeance” and are likewise mortal sins. These grave sins are:
The voluntary murder (Genesis 4:10)
The sin of impurity against nature –Sodomy and homosexual relations (Genesis 18:20)
Taking advantage of the poor (Exodus 2:23)
Defrauding the workingman of his wages (James 5:4)
Since Simon Magus was not aware of the gravity (full knowledge) of what he was saying (#’2 and 3 below)It is not considered a mortal sin.
Mortal sin is committed with full knowledge of the sinner
Mortal sin is committed with deliberate consent of the sinner
So what’s considered a venial sin?
As stated before, venial sin is a sin of lesser matter than grave sin. It can also be a sin of grave matter in which the sinner did not fully consent to the sin or did not have knowledge that his actions where sinful. Venial sins will not destroy grace in the soul, and will not directly cause a person who dies in the state of venial sin to lose the promise of heaven. Yet, venial sin weakens a person’s will to avoid evil and thus may indirectly lead to mortal sin. Regardless, all sin is an offense against God and should be avoided.
So as shown, even though Simon Magus had grave matter, he did not have full knowledge or deliberate consent since he did repent.
Link below was used for reference.
http://www.saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.html
Gerry, you are using a bootstrap form of argument, taking a Catholic doctrine and using that as a default to interpret a key passage of Scripture. It should be the other way around. In essence you claim Simon’s has to be a “venial” sin because the Catholic teaching on it demands that it be so.
But Peter’s word “perish” has only one meaning, destruction. Either as a curse or a prediction. So you have to start from there, and doing so renders the “venial” argument null. The whole venial/mortal distinction I reject anyway, but even under those terms, Peter himself has named this a mortal sin.
jsb,
Actually, you are the one that is reading your novel “theory” from the 1500’s backwards into time when it didn’t exist. I have shown several passages and early writings that show a consistent Catholic belief to validate my interpretation. Again, you cannot or have not shown that your “interpretation” is anything but a protestant “theory”.
What is your “interpretation” of 1 John 5:16-17?
16 If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray.
17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly
Since scripture says there is deadly sin that one should not pray for, how does this tie into “once saved always saved”??
Gerry, let’s not get sidetracked here. Peter’s pronouncement, even under your terms, is mortal. Your objection is, therefore, irrelevant. One does not need a “theory” to know what Peter plainly states.
The debate over Catholicism’s doctrine of mortal/venial is beside the point. (You can find plenty of material on this elsewhere). The issue here is penance. And as I’ve shown, even if you want to keep that Catholic filter in place, Peter has stated Simon’s was a mortal sin.
jsb,
Unless you can back up your interpretation it is only your opinion. I can back mine up with consistent writings up until today and you seem to either ignore this or acknowledge it and try to deflect it..
Actually, the debate about mortal and venial sins is very relevant to whether or not justification is a process (the original intent of this article). Now I await your interpretation of 1 John 15-17..
So again,
What is your “interpretation” of 1 John 5:16-17?
16 If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray.
17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly
Since scripture says there is deadly sin that one should not pray for, how does this tie into “once saved always saved”??
I await your answer.
That whole mortal/venial thing really flies in the face of reason.
So if I only commit a lesser sin, the Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth can handle that one.
But if I commit a great sin, we really need to call in the Varstiy team…the earthly, fallen Catholic priests?
Right…
jsb,
I really don’t think you are going to get an intellectually honest response on the plain reading of Acts 8:20.
Keith,
First off, I gave you both a very complete answer to Acts 8. Now it is my turn to get an answer on 1 John 15-16.
Yes. Gerry, you are trying to avoid the issue again with a false tangent. This is either a purposeful ruse, or you’re just not getting the focus. Listen carefuly: I will agree, for purposes of argument, that your view of mortal/venial sins is correct. OK? So we don’t need to go there anymore.
Now, here is the simple question for you. In Acts 8:20, does “perish” mean “perish” or not?
Perhaps I can help you with the Greek, from Strong’s:
“damnable(-nation), destruction, die, perdition”
What do YOU think the word means?
jsb,
Thank you for your honesty.
Let’s look at the passage again so I can explain further.
13 Even Simon himself believed and, after being baptized, became devoted to Philip; and when he saw the signs and mighty deeds that were occurring, he was astounded.
14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent them Peter and John,
15 who went down and prayed for them, that they might receive the holy Spirit,
16 for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 5
17 Then they laid hands on them and they received the holy Spirit.
18 When Simon saw that the Spirit was conferred by the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money
19 and said, “Give me this power too, so that anyone upon whom I lay my hands may receive the holy Spirit.”
20 But Peter said to him, “May your money perish with you, because you thought that you could buy the gift of God with money.
21 You have no share or lot in this matter, for your heart is not upright before God.
22 Repent of this wickedness of yours and pray to the Lord that, if possible, your intention may be forgiven.
23 For I see that you are filled with bitter gall and are in the bonds of iniquity.”
24 Simon said in reply, “Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.”
In summary, Peter says in verse 22 “repent of this wickedness”
and “pray to the Lord” since he tells him to repent and pray than he is not lost altogether but needs repentance.
Wilepedia’s definition or repentance:
In Biblical Hebrew, the idea of repentance is represented by two verbs: שוב shuv (to return) and נחם nicham (to feel sorrow).
In the New Testament, the word translated as ‘repentance’ is the Greek word μετάνοια (metanoia), “after/behind one’s mind”, which is a compound word of the preposition ‘meta’ (after, with), and the verb ‘noeo’ (to perceive, to think, the result of perceiving or observing). In this compound word the preposition combines the two meanings of time and change, which may be denoted by ‘after’ and ‘different’; so that the whole compound means: ‘to think differently after’. Metanoia is therefore primarily an after-thought, different from the former thought; a change of mind accompanied by regret and change of conduct, “change of mind and heart”, or, “change of consciousness”. One of the key descriptions of repentance in the New Testament is the parable of the prodigal son found in the Gospel of Luke 15 beginning at verse 11.
So if Peter is asking him to change his heart and mind and to pray to the Lord then Peter is not damning him at all.
Are we not all prodigal sons and daughters of God??
Again, Gerry, you’re not answering the key question. Here it is yet again:
In Acts 8:20, what does “perish” mean?
jsb,
I agree with your definition of perish used in verse 20 and would agree with your point if he stopped at that, BUT since he follows with “repent” and “pray for forgiveness” in verse 22 it negates your point. Good dialogue!! Thanks.
Gerry…we went around and around for a long time, but I think at least we have clarity now about each others’ position. That, at least, is progress.
Thank you.
jsb,
God bless you my brother or sister in Christ
Sorry, I don’t know if jsb is male or female.. Talk to you soon, I’m sure;-)
I agree with your definition of perish used in verse 20 and would agree with your point if he stopped at that, BUT since he follows with “repent” and “pray for forgiveness” in verse 22 it negates your point. Good dialogue!! Thanks.
So then Peter negated himself? “I know I wrote this in vs. 20, but here comes vs. 22, so don’t worry about that.” — I don’t know about that one. It’s your contention of the mortal vs. venial sin distinction that requires that Peter contradict himself in the next two verses.
Thanks, jsb, for seeking to give the Biblical position on these things at the expense of your own time. I hope many would be helped and guarded as they read this.
Mike,
You misunderstood what I wrote or I wasn’t clear enough (my wife would tell you that I am not very clear either
. I meant that Peter’s comment of “may your money perish with you” was not a damning statement. It was meant to show him the gravity and seriousness of what he said. So if he meant to cast him out as lost, he wouldn’t have said “repent” and “pray for forgiveness”. Peter didn’t contradict himself at all. I have clearly shown “biblically” that in 1 John 5:16-17 it says not to pray for deadly sin, so the fact that Peter tells him to pray shows that it was not deadly, since scripture cannot contradict scripture, right?
I just wanted to add one more thing that was never addressed properly. It is very apparent from the reading of Acts 8 that Simon the Magician was not a true Christian.
Gerry wrote:
“So as shown, even though Simon Magus had grave matter, he did not have full knowledge or deliberate consent since he did repent.”
The text never shows him repenting. He just didn’t want Peter’s curse upon his head. This was worldy sorrow not godly sorrow. Let’s look at this man’s true character:
Act 8:5 Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed to them the Christ.
Act 8:6 And the crowds with one accord paid attention to what was being said by Philip when they heard him and saw the signs that he did.
Act 8:7 For unclean spirits, crying out with a loud voice, came out of many who had them, and many who were paralyzed or lame were healed.
Act 8:8 So there was much joy in that city.
Act 8:9 But there was a man named Simon, who had previously practiced magic in the city and amazed the people of Samaria, saying that he himself was somebody great.
Act 8:10 They all paid attention to him, from the least to the greatest, saying, “This man is the power of God that is called Great.”
Act 8:11 And they paid attention to him because for a long time he had amazed them with his magic.
Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Act 8:13 Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.
Philip came and ruined his good thing that he had going, so Simon jumped on the bandwagon, so to speak. As soon as he found an angle to get himself esteemed again (thinking he could buy the power to give the Holy Spirit) he showed his true colors. Yes, one could say “but he believed!” Believed in what? Even the demons believe Jesus is the Son of God and they shudder!! This man was not a Christian.
Sorry to drag this on even further, but Acts 8 lends no support whatsoever to your position, Gerry.
I just wanted to add one more thing that was never addressed properly. It is very apparent from the reading of Acts 8 that Simon the Magician was not a true Christian.
Gerry wrote:
“So as shown, even though Simon Magus had grave matter, he did not have full knowledge or deliberate consent since he did repent.”
The text never shows him repenting. He just didn’t want Peter’s curse upon his head. This was worldy sorrow not godly sorrow. Let’s look at this man’s true character:
Act 8:5 Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed to them the Christ.
Act 8:6 And the crowds with one accord paid attention to what was being said by Philip when they heard him and saw the signs that he did.
Act 8:7 For unclean spirits, crying out with a loud voice, came out of many who had them, and many who were paralyzed or lame were healed.
Act 8:8 So there was much joy in that city.
Act 8:9 But there was a man named Simon, who had previously practiced magic in the city and amazed the people of Samaria, saying that he himself was somebody great.
Act 8:10 They all paid attention to him, from the least to the greatest, saying, “This man is the power of God that is called Great.”
Act 8:11 And they paid attention to him because for a long time he had amazed them with his magic.
Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Act 8:13 Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.
Philip came and ruined his good thing that he had going, so Simon jumped on the bandwagon, so to speak. As soon as he found an angle to get himself esteemed again (thinking he could buy the power to give the Holy Spirit) he showed his true colors. Yes, one could say “but he believed!” Believed in what? Even the demons believe Jesus is the Son of God and they shudder!! This man was not a Christian.
Sorry to drag this on even further, but Acts 8 lends no support whatsoever to your position, Gerry.
Keith,
Wow, your really flailing now
First, you use this as your proof text for the believing Christian being reconciled to God directly (without confession)and now because your house of cards is falling around you, you have to call in question Simon Magus’ status as a “true Christian”. “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned’” (Mark 16:15–16).
That’s pretty judgmental. Even jsb, who is a fundamentalist like yourself, admitted in an earlier post that Simon was a believer. His/her words: (Simon was a baptized believer (8:13).) You are sounding like the Pharisee Jesus speaks of in Luke 18:9-14, watch out…
It’s funny that now you are the one reading way too much into the “plain reading” you spoke of earlier and injecting pure fiction that Simon was “only jumping on the bandwagon” in order for it to fit into your doctorine. “In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures” (2 Peter 3:15).
The bigger question is..since we see that scripture clearly shows there are mortal and venial sins and we cannot pray for mortal sin how then is the Christian that sins mortally reconciled to God or are they? We only have two options.
1) The Protestant position that the one was has sinned mortally was never “saved” to begin with. If this is true, then there is no such thing as being “saved” since he/she is now lost even though they once believed. What kind of assurance is this??
OR
2) The Catholic position that justification is a process and that Jesus Christ gave his visible body, The Church, the authority to forgive sins in His name (John 20:21-23 and Matt 18:18).
This power was understood as coming from God: “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18). “So we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20).
Tertullian
“[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness” (Repentance 10:1 [A.D. 203]).
Sounds like MacArthur thinks it’s a process….
“Don’t believe anyone who says it’s easy to become a Christian. Salvation for sinners cost God His own Son; it cost God’s Son His life, and it’ll cost you the same thing. Salvation isn’t the result of an intellectual exercise. It comes from a life lived in obedience and service to Christ as revealed in the Scripture; it’s the fruit of actions, not intentions. … The life we live, not the words we speak, determines our eternal destiny.” John MacArthur, “Hard to Believe”, page 93.
His comment that salvation is the result of a “life lived in obedience and service to Christ…” sounds very process oriented.
Shawn,
Are you being purposefully disingenuous or do you really thing that JM believes that salvation is a life long process?
Be honest with your quotes please.
He is contrasting between the “cheap lip service confession” and the fruit of a truly regenerated heart.