justification

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='947144' date='Apr 14 2006, 09:42 AM']
Christians still reject your notion that you can go to hell for a single mortal sin that you're living in or that God will judge you for where you happen to be when you die. It's all about the direction of your life, not a technicality if you happen to have a mortal or grave if you will sin.
[/quote]
This is called the fundamental option theory and is a relatively new position in ethical philosophy. It is also wholly inconsistent. Being in the state of mortal sin is not a technicality. Being in the state of mortal sin is the result of a conscious decision to reject God, incarnated in a particular act during one's lifetime.

This is from a paper I wrote on Veritatis Splendor, one of Pope John Paul II's encyclicals. All references are to that work:

According to some theological theorists, the moral life is centered around the fundamental option either to follow God or to reject Him (65). While the moral life is undoubtedly an invitation to a radical movement toward God, it cannot be taken to the extent which these theories attempt to take it. Indeed, the Gospels do call many times for those who wish to be with God to give up everything for the sake of the Gospel (66). This call "can be described as involving a fundamental option" (66).
However, in submitting to the theory that the fundamental option is all that matters, the faithful would be enslaving themselves to evil acts while (allegedly) retaining their fundamentally moral and God-centered stance (66). This is because the fundamental option theory creates a dualism between faith and life, between the fundamental choice of a person for or against God and the person's actions. In this dualism, "a distinction thus comes to be introduced between the fundamental option and deliberate choices of a concrete kind of behavior" (65). While the fundamental option may be involved in the moral life, as Jesus calls the faithful into such radical choices, it cannot be said that the faithful could believe one thing and do another, as is often the case with the fundamental option theory, which "is pushed to the point where a concrete kind of behavior, even on freely chosen, comes to be considered as a merely physical process, and not according to the criteria proper to a human act" (65).
Because these moral theories set up a rather hypocritical dualism, they are contrary to the faith and to Catholic moral tradition. This is because the Catholic moral tradition views "the fundamental option as a genuine choice of freedom and links that choice profoundly to particular acts" (67). The faith is such that, once radically chosen, it must be lived. The dualism was pointed out in Veritatis Splendor: it contradicts "the substantial integrity of personal unity of the moral agent in his body and in his soul" (67). In other words, this dualism is wholly inconsistent with the Catholic faith because it states that the soul may do one thing and the body another, entirely contrary, thing. Nor can the soul simply have a good intention and allow the body to use whatever means it sees appropriate to achieve its goal (67).
If the particular act is not in accord with the fundamental option, then it is, quite simply, a refutation of the fundamental option and a withdrawal from the moral life. It is not only by withdrawing the fundamental option in the soul, but also by "every freely committed mortal sin [that] he offends God as the giver of the law and as a result becomes guilty with regard to the entire law; even if he perseveres in faith (that is, sticks to the fundamental option), he loses "sanctifying grace," "charity," and "eternal happiness" (68). Although one may say that he wishes to remain with God, that he is fundamentally turned to God, if his actions contradict that to the extent of mortal sin, then he is wrong and in grave danger of losing his immortal soul. This is most certainly different from the fundamental option theory, which allows a person to do whatever he wishes in practice while "believing" another thing or being "fundamentally" turned toward God.

[jesussaves]

If this fundamental option bit were true, I would insist that it'd apply to even the smaller sins, as you are not pursuing God fully.

It is true that some sins are more serious than other sins. But this notion of being able to draw a line in the sand between smaller and larger sins, where the larger sins can cancel out everything is arbitary and not part of the gosple.

[jasJis]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='959613' date='Apr 24 2006, 07:35 PM']
If this fundamental option bit were true, I would insist that it'd apply to even the smaller sins, as you are not pursuing God fully.

It is true that some sins are more serious than other sins. But this notion of being able to draw a line in the sand between smaller and larger sins, where the larger sins can cancel out everything is arbitary and not part of the gosple.
[/quote]Then how do you explain Paul's admonition to the Galatians?

"I say, then: live by the Spirit and you will certainly not gratify the desire of the flesh. For the flesh has desires against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; these are opposed to each other, so that you may not do what you want. But if you are guided by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. [b]I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."[/b]

[Brother Adam]

Or rather, it isn't immediately obvious to your own worldview. If the Bible says very specifically that some sins are mortal and others are not mortal, than there is indeed a line to be drawn, one which the Church has always understood and always taught. Unless of course you propose that the Apostles, their successors, the early Church, and all Christians got it wrong for over 1600 years. Feel free to prove it. I believe ironmonks offer of something like $10,000 and his truck still stands.

[Paphnutius]

I first apologize for my tardiness in posting. My internet provider has been a bit haywire the past four days and so I was forced to wait.

[quote]Frankly, I don't know if one will continue to sin in heaven or if the person will simply be prevented from sinning or if it's where sinners lose that part of themself that could be good.[/quote]This is where it is sad. I do not mean this as an insult, but this shows just how shallow non-Catholic theology can be. We do not sin in heaven because our wills will so totally turned and united with God. We will see God face to face and love Him so fully that we will never turn to sin again. It is not that we are prevented from sinning from some other source (this would deny free will which is a part of being human) and it is not that we will loose our free will (unless you meant that some other part is responsible for sin), it is that we will see the Beatific Vision and wish to never turn from it. Heaven is like a constant affirmation of our love for God.

[quote]The bible does say we must be perfect to enter into heaven. This I believe is through a legal degree. That's the good news of the gosple. [/quote]Please point me to where it says, "Although you are really filthy with sin, I will simply call you clean and let you in. I will not grant you the grace to be truely clean, but simply call you clean."

[quote]You don't have to be perfect inwardly or no one could enter heaven.[/quote]No? Where does it say that? I thought it said that you had to be perfect, not called or decreed perfect.

[quote] You distort the biblical idea of forgiveness and the implied guarantee of heaven. [/quote]Would you like to discuss once saved always saved? How do we distort the idea of forgiveness?

[quote]You see that you can't require works to allow us to be forgiven, so you find another way to distort the good news by saying that forgiveness is not enough, that "justification" requires sanctification to be complete.
[/quote]You do understand that they said forgiveness is not enough without Grace correct? They were saying that one must accept Grace. Furthermore, please answer this question, "Would you agree that one must cooperate with grace and the process? " Also, just incased if you missed it, I posted this above to clarify what was stated: "The Church was stating that it was wrong to say that only the forgiveness is necessary without grace or renewal of the inner man (charity). It does not down play forgiveness, but rather states that grace and renewal are both necessary for Justification."

So are you stating that grace is not necessary for salvation? If you are not then you agree with the Church. Do you say that one must not be renewed or turned again towards God for salvationn? If not, then you agree with the Church.

[quote]Sanctification is required, but we are not expected to be perfect inherently.[/quote]Then what is the point of Sanctification? "Being made holy or perfect is required, but we are not expected to attain it." That is just what you said here. Something is required but there is not way that it can be attained? Your position is inconsitent in the fact that you recongize we must be perfect to enter into heaven, but then in the same breath deny that it actually happens.

[jesussaves]

[quote]Please point me to where it says, "Although you are really filthy with sin, I will simply call you clean and let you in. I will not grant you the grace to be truely clean, but simply call you clean."[/quote]

Though your sins be like dung, they are as white as snow. That's from the bible.

[quote]You do understand that they said forgiveness is not enough without Grace correct? They were saying that one must accept Grace. Furthermore, please answer this question, "Would you agree that one must cooperate with grace and the process? " Also, just incased if you missed it, I posted this above to clarify what was stated: "The Church was stating that it was wrong to say that only the forgiveness is necessary without grace or renewal of the inner man (charity). It does not down play forgiveness, but rather states that grace and renewal are both necessary for Justification." [/quote]

One must cooperate with grace generally speaking.

[quote]So are you stating that grace is not necessary for salvation? If you are not then you agree with the Church. Do you say that one must not be renewed or turned again towards God for salvationn? If not, then you agree with the Church. [/quote]


As I said before.
[quote]
I believe that if you are forgiven, you are going to heaven. I agree that works are necessary and that it is wrong to forget about sanctification but

I disagree that works are part of justification, if you believe this sort of justification to be necessary for heaven. If you think the works are part of justification in that to truly be "justified" in a more general sense, which includes a sense that does not exclude heaven, then I agree with you, [/quote]

Works are necessary. I do not think they should be part of justification. But let's not argue terminology if we do agree with the same concepts. We both agree works are necessary. Faith is necessary. I suppose the only part where we disagree is that perfection is necessary.

[quote]Then what is the point of Sanctification? "Being made holy or perfect is required, but we are not expected to attain it." That is just what you said here. Something is required but there is not way that it can be attained? Your position is inconsitent in the fact that you recongize we must be perfect to enter into heaven, but then in the same breath deny that it actually happens.[/quote]

Sanctification means to me simply increasing in holiness. It's a general disposition. It's not being made perfect inherently.



So on a tangently related note, is there an official stance on whether or not someone can die in a mortal sin, but that person would have eventually repented and God knows that, so that person is not necessarily damned? I haven't ruled out the idea that people who commit grave sins will one day repent, but I do not see it fitting for God to beaver dam someone who happens to be in grave sin if they are generally improving and have faith.

[jasJis]

jesussaves,
It's not Catholic Theology that's shallow, it's people's understanding of it or ability to explain. Catholic Theology is not shallow, it's just often ignored.

[jasJis]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='961963' date='Apr 26 2006, 01:26 PM']
So on a tangently related note, is there an official stance on whether or not someone can die in a mortal sin, but that person would have eventually repented and God knows that, so that person is not necessarily damned? I haven't ruled out the idea that people who commit grave sins will one day repent, but I do not see it fitting for God to beaver dam someone who happens to be in grave sin if they are generally improving and have faith.[/quote]The answer is not neccesarily. First off, God judges perfectly if one has committed a mortal sin. Only God knows and understands how much of our conscience will intended to do the grave sin which makes it mortal. If the person's heart started to regret the sin, God alone will judge if the person responded adequately to Grace or not. To fully respond to Grace, a Catholic knows he can turn to the Sacrament of Confession/Reconcilliation to be assured of Grace. A Catholic publically confesses his sin to a priest, the priest will provide counsel and let the Catholic know that God's grace has forgiven him. Priests do not forgive, God does. The priest only serves as a channel of God's grace. God doesn't need confession, but He established it so we can hear and know the words 'You Are Forgiven' are true and effective. Plus the Catholic has the added bonus of getting some counsel to improve their works tha participate with grace. It's very Biblical. Re-read the Pentecost story.

[jesussaves]

Are you a protestant telling me this? I ask because of your signature
and label. I ask wondering why you defend the Catholic Church?

But thanks for the reply. That seems like a reasonable stance and Catholicesque. It's definitely food for thought. Now I need to consider the hypothetical of whether a person can have a single sin and have it firm, with faith, and not be damned.

[jasJis]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='961980' date='Apr 26 2006, 01:48 PM']
Are you a protestant telling me this? I ask because of your signature
and label. I ask wondering why you defend the Catholic Church?

But thanks for the reply. That seems like a reasonable stance and Catholicesque. It's definitely food for thought. Now I need to consider the hypothetical of whether a person can have a single sin and have it firm, with faith, and not be damned.
[/quote]Whether you're a Baptist, a Pentecostal, or a Catholic, wouldn't you defend and admit the truth that Jesus is the Son of God? I'm just defending what's True. Christians share more Truth than they are willing to admit.

I don't understand your hypothetical question.

[Paphnutius]

[quote]Though your sins be like dung, they are as white as snow[/quote]If you could please supply me with book and verse that would greatly help. In all honesty I search different Bibles for the words "dung", "sin", and "snow" and did not find this verse. Pehaps it was just translations that caused me to find nothing, but citation would be helpful. Regardless, though our sins be like dung, they are as white as snow. That would seem to reflect a real and effective change, not simply a decree or statement.

[quote]One must cooperate with grace generally speaking. [/quote]Generally speaking? Could you please clarify what you mean.

[quote]Sanctification means to me simply increasing in holiness. It's a general disposition. It's not being made perfect inherently.[/quote]Sanctification literally means "being made holy." So yes it is a perfection or change. It has a real and effective change on your soul.

[quote]I haven't ruled out the idea that people who commit grave sins will one day repent, but I do not see it fitting for God to beaver dam someone who happens to be in grave sin if they are generally improving and have faith.[/quote]First, thank you jasjis for your answers with this. Secondly, I would like to point out that there is no offical stance that I am aware of that affirms what you have stated. Also, mortal sin is a very conscious and deliberate turning away from God. One cannot be "generally improving and having faith" if one is sinning mortally. This is by the very nature and definition of mortal sin. When one sins mortally, one is aware of what one is doing, that is rejecting God with hardness of heart. If the person would have eventually repented, that is not for us to know nor decide. God gives us more than enough time to seek and follow Him. He does not pull a fast one on anyone and decide to end our lives in mortal sin knowing we would have repented later.

[jasJis]

The typical Catholic reply, Paph.

Did you read my post? Did you attempt to understand it? Ask those questions while your read my post. Is it Catholicism that turns minds to that bent to find fault in anyone other than a card-carrying Catholic, or is it a general failure of the education system that prevents people from comprehending the written word?

[Paphnutius]

[quote]Did you read my post? Did you attempt to understand it? Ask those questions while your read my post. [/quote]You have lost me here. This is not about finding fault in anyone. I agreed with you in this respect that, "If the person would have eventually repented, that is not for us to know nor decide." I read your post and understood it. I, however, wished to point out the nature of mortal sin. It was not an attack on your position for my reply was addressed to jesussaves. I am sorry if it came across as attacking your statement. I am at a loss as to what you meant with this. What I do know, is that my words were not dripping in sarcasm. [quote][i]or is it a general failure of the education system that prevents people from comprehending the written word[/i]?[/quote]

Edited April 27, 2006 by Paphnutius

[Jnorm888]

Jesus saves,




You have to remember that Rome doesn't see a real dividing line between the words "justification" and "sanctification".



So when you read what they say about "justification" you have to look at it as both being "justification and sanctification"


This is what they mean by saying such things as "an increase of Justification"



That's like us saying "growing in grace" or "increasing in sanctification"





INLOVE Jnorm

[desertwoman]

Whats up my friend!!! Norm!!!!!!!!!

[Jnorm888]

[quote name='desertwoman' post='981145' date='May 14 2006, 05:41 PM']
Whats up my friend!!! Norm!!!!!!!!!
[/quote]





Hello







INCHRIST Jnorm

[thessalonian]

Jesussaves,

Please go to my thread on imputed rigtheousness and purgatory. You tell us that man will not be perfect at the end of life. Yet scriptures tell us he MUST be perfect when he gets to heaven. I would like your opinion on that thread. Thanks.