80 thoughts on “Why We Should Read Romans Jealously”

1. Tim,

   And that is why “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth” (Romans 10:4). The righteousness of the Law says Do these things and you will live! But “the word of faith, which we preach” says, Live, and you will do these things! There is galactic span between these two, and the Roman Catholic gospel is on the wrong side of it. By Paul’s use of Moses in Romans 10:8, we know that he was not commending the righteousness of “law obedience” in Romans 2:6-8, but that is exactly what Roman Catholicism has concluded

   The “Roman Catholic gospel” also preaches “live and you will do these things”. We both agree that works of law (done apart from grace in the flesh) profit nothing. The disagreement is whether or not the “things ” we will be doing are meritorious of heaven or not. Your failure to distinguish between the works discussed in Romans 2 and the works of law discussed elsewhere is your down fall.

   Reply

   1. Thank you, Kenneth,

      I appreciate your comment. As we are taught by the Council of Trent, in Roman Catholicism, by His death, Jesus “became, to all who obey him, the cause of eternal salvation.” (Decree on Justification, Ch. XI, “On keeping the Commandments, and on the necessity and possibility thereof.”) I understand that Rome considers Jesus the meritorious cause of our salvation.

      In Chapter X it says of those who are initially justified by faith, “through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified.” I understand that Rome believes that through our continued obedience to the Law we continue to accrue righteousness (justice) toward our justification.

      Further, in a later chapter (XVI) we are told, that “Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into” those who are justified, and that this virtue accompanies their good works, and by those very works which have been done in God, [they have] fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life.” I understand the Rome teaches that, by the accrued righteousness (justice) we receive by continued obedience to the law, we can merit eternal life.

      As you say, “We both agree that works of law (done apart from grace in the flesh) profit nothing.” Therefore, there never was a meritorious righteousness based on the law prior to faith in Christ, and that works done in the flesh were never, and could never be, the ground of anyone’s righteousness. Thus, only after faith, rebirth and initial justification is a man able to do the works of the law in the Spirit and thereby merit eternal life.

      If that is so, then Paul, so it seems to me, should have said that “Christ is the beginning of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth,” for in Rome, so He seems to be.

      But the ground of justification is the “righteousness of God” (Romans 3:21, 10:3) received by faith (10:6) apart from the works of the law (3:21-22). It cannot possibly be the righteousness of law done in us—even by the power of the Holy Spirit. That would make Christ the beginning of the Law for righteousness.

      Thanks for your comment,

      Tim

      Reply

   2. TIM–
      You said: “And that is why “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth” (Romans 10:4). The righteousness of the Law says Do these things and you will live! But “the word of faith, which we preach” says, Live, and you will do these things! There is galactic span between these two, and the Roman Catholic gospel is on the wrong side of it.”

      No, it is not. And you cited this article:
      http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/we-can-work-it-out
      “Paul made very clear in Romans 2:6-8 that good works are necessary for attaining eternal life, at least for those capable of performing them: “For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.”

      Really? Paul said that in Romans? Hmmmmmm………
      Let’s read further:

      “So what about the fact that Paul also said we are “justified by faith apart from works of law?” He was writing to a church in Rome struggling with a very prominent first-century heretical sect known today as the “Judaizers.” These heretics taught that belief in Christ and obedience to the New Covenant was not enough to be saved. A man also had to keep the Mosaic Law (which, according to Hebrews 7:11-12, has been superseded in Christ) and be circumcised in order to be saved (cf. Acts 15:1-2). Paul gave us one clue—among many—that he had this sect in mind when he wrote in Romans 2:28-29, “For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal . . . ” Paul told us in Colossians 2:11-12 that this true “circumcision of Christ” is baptism.”

      Really? The Roman Catholics actually believe what Paul teaches. Doesn’t look like they are on the wrong side at all.

      “It is in this context that Paul says we are “justified by faith apart from works of law.” He did not in any sense say that works are unnecessary. He specified works of law because these were the works without which the Judaizers were claiming one “cannot be saved.”

      My, my. That’s what I get out of Paul’s writings when I read the Bible.

      And here is what you said:
      “Indeed, in the gospel there is a righteousness that comes by faith, apart from the works of the law, and it is not, “good works are necessary for attaining eternal life.” It is, rather, the “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; … For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith” (Romans 1:16-17). For “by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified” (Romans 3:20). And the fruit of justification by faith alone, through Christ alone, is obedience to the law.”

      Hmmmmm…… I see Catholics believing and professing faith in Christ every time they go to mass. And that is before they do anything else. If that alone is faith, then they are saved no matter what you say.

      James said: Ja 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
      And of all people, Paul said: 1Co 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

      Reply

2. Tim, It would seem to me “not that of yourself” not a result of works” to the one who does not work” if its is by grace, no longer by works, or grace isn’t grace.” base Rome boxed in on their Jesus being a softer Moses with a softer Law to fulfill. Romans 8:4 says we are not condemned( or we are justified) because He fulfilled the RROTL” in us” not ” by us” passive voice. A lot for Rome to overcome.

   Reply

   1. Thanks, Kevin,

      I certainly agree that our justification is by grace through faith apart from the works of the Law. Of course, the Roman Catholic would hold that it is not we, but God working through the infused virtues of Christ in us Who does the law works that merit eternal life, and that it is by His grace that we are able to merit eternal life by the works of the Law done in us by Him after initial justification.

      But Romans 3:21-22, I think, militates against this. “But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith.”

      Even if we give credit to God for the works done in us, it still ends up being the “righteousness of God with the law.” What does the “righteousness of God without the law” for justification look like, if it is said by Rome to be “works of the law performed by God in us.” That’s righteousness of God “with the law” not righteousness of God “without the law.” “Righteousness without the law” cannot include any law works at all, even Spirit-led works of the Law.

      We keep in mind that Paul fully expected the believing Gentiles in Rome to be law-abiding (Romans 13:7-10), and further, it was his mission “to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed” (Romans 15:18). Presumably, these Gentiles are to be “doers of the law” by the Spirit, not by the flesh, right? And yet Paul insists that their righteousness for justification was still “without the law” at all. This, I think, is the meaning of Romans 2:13: the doers of the law will be justified, not the hearers only, and they will be justified by faith alone, “without the deeds of the law” (Romans 3:28). Those who continue to pursue a righteousness based on the law will not find it.

      Well, as you say: grace isn’t grace if it is by works. And “it is of faith, that it might be by grace.” (Romans 4:16). I certainly agree.

      Thanks so much for your comment,

      Tim

      Reply

      1. Tim, I was re reading this post of yours to me today, and Im not sure it can be said better than this. I do look forward to when you deal with this subject again. Thanks K

         Reply

3. Tim,

   You write

   If that is so then Paul, so it seems to me, should have said that “Christ is the beginning of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth,” for in Rome, so He seems to be.

   Here, you are again not distinguishing between the kind of works being called meritorious(Romans 2) and the works being condemned in other parts of the epistle. Christ is the End of the law (done I’m a system of debt apart from grace) for righteousness. That has nothing to do with the works of spirit that are meritorious discussed in chapter 2.

   But the ground of justification is the “righteousness of God” (Romans 3:21, 10:3) received by faith (10:6) apart from the works of the law (3:21-22). It cannot possibly be the righteousness of law done in us—even by the power of the Holy Spirit. That would make Christ the beginning of the Law for righteousness.

   You will notice that it can be righteousness of law brought by Spirit wrought works as soon as one stops equivocating works of law with works in grace.

   Reply

4. TIm K,

   I think that it may be helpful to illuminate the Roman Catholic position on “Saint Paul and the Law”. In your previous response to me above you write

   In Chapter X it says of those who are initially justified by faith, “through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified.” I understand that Rome believes that through our continued obedience to the Law we continue to accrue righteousness (justice) toward our justification.

   Further, in a later chapter (XVI) we are told, that “Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into” those who are justified, and that this virtue accompanies their good works, and by those very works which have been done in God, [they have] fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life.” I understand the Rome teaches that, by the accrued righteousness (justice) we receive by continued obedience to the law, we can merit eternal life.

   I have suspected for a while now that you have been equivocating “works of law” and “the law” with Roman Catholic teaching that as good works done through the Spirit fulfil the divine law and merit eternal life. There are numerous language issues to parsue through with protestant and catholic dialog (merit, law, justification, grace, etc) and I was thinking that perhaps you could benefit from this source discussing the various uses of “law” and “works of law” used by Saint Paul and also the Roman Catholic Church. God bless you Tim!

   http://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/justification-salvation/paul-and-the-law-by-james-akin/

   This should clear up the confusion

   Reply

   1. Dear Kenneth,

      I will note, peripherally, that it is not a little ironic that the article you provided to “clear up the confusion” starts with an acknowledgement that James Akin is not confident he has it right. To wit: “There are basically four senses in which [Paul] uses the term and in almost every occurrence (so far as I can tell)….”

      “So far as I can tell” is hardly the clarity that was implied in your comment. Nevertheless, I do appreciate your contributions here.

      That said, Akins starts out with an assumption that is foreign to the text, and then proceeds to interpret the text based on that assumption. He writes, “Here the context is very obviously the difference between Jews and Gentiles and the accountability of the Gentiles even though they do not have the Torah or the Mosaic Law.”

      Far from it. The context is Paul intentionally making the Jews jealous. You do not make the Jews jealous by showing how accountable the Gentiles are without the law. You make the Jews jealous by showing how the promises to which the Jews were ethnically and covenantally entitled are actually being lavished upon the Gentiles.

      For example, Jeremiah prophesied that according to the New Covenant, He would put His law in our inward parts, write it on our hearts, and “I will be their God and they will be My people” (Jeremiah 31:33). Further, “they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them” (Jeremiah 31:34). It’s what comes next that really gets them upset: “for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” (Jeremiah 31:34).

      So when Paul writes that the Gentiles have the law written on their hearts (Romans 2:15) and are a “law unto themselves” (2:14), and are being justified (Romans 2: 13), it hearkens back to Jeremiah 31:33-34. Paul is saying, these Gentiles whom the Jews despise are God’s people now, for they not only hear the law, but they also do it, indicating that they have believed the truth, as evidenced by the law that has been written “in their inward parts.” Thus it is fulfilled at once, both “I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people” (Hosea 2:23), as well as, “I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people” (Deuteronomy 32:21).

      I should let you know that I do not subscribe to the Natural Law theology that has historically dominated interpretations of this particular text. In Romans 2 Paul says the Gentiles have the Law, they have the circumcision, and have the ethnic identity of “Jews,” and are in fact obedient to the law while the Jews are not. The promise to write the law on our hearts is not to all descendants of Adam, but to God’s people alone. That is why the Jews would respond with Jealousy at the reading of Romans 2. There is every indication that this is precisely the reaction Paul intended, and precisely the reaction he received when he preached:

      Ac 13:45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.

      Ac 17:5 But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.

      You can well imagine why they might ask, as Paul anticipates in Romans 3:1, “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?”

      Best regards,

      Tim

      Reply

5. Tim,Kevin,Kenneth, Catholics and Protestants,

   Just to bypass the question of whether we are speaking of good works or Jewish nationalism, let us just address the issue of Bad Works ( a.k.a. sins ) which we can all, hopefully, agree upon.

   Practically all the admonitions and exhortation St. Paul gives are addressed to brothers/ believers,so the question should be about the rewards or penalties involved in those admonitions and exhortations.

   To say that a true believer is incapable of fornication, theft, not providing for widowed family members, etc. makes one wonder why Paul would even bother to utter those same exhortations and warnings. The Calvinist response that a truly regenerate person will cease and repent before death renders the very concept of the term “warning” meaningless.

   So, if works, of either the Torah or the Christian variety don’t matter as to our initial or final justification, do our sins matter after either? Why are we to told to strive for the holiness without which we will not see God?
   The Savior Only folks actually carry reformed theology to its logical conclusions.
   Ciao

   Reply

6. So, if works, of either the Torah or the Christian variety don’t matter as to our initial or final justification, do our sins matter after either?

   Here’s where I am at:

   Andrew B
   Posted September 11, 2013 at 9:14 pm | Permalink
   Gee, guys, heady stuff. Making me pull out my Fesko as soon as I get home from work. In it, he writes: Namely, it is imperative that we hold together imputation and union with Christ, the priority of the legal-forensic over the transformative, all of which are relational. One might fight that same line here, and more:

   From here, we can identify three concepts that we must understand to have a proper understanding of the relationship between union with Christ and justification: (1) that the legal aspects of our redemption are relational; (2) justification is the legal aspect of our union with Christ; and (3) that justification is the ground of our sanctification.

   In other words, works do matter, in so far as justification is the ground of our sanctification.

   There’s a lot here to unpack. I encourage you to check out the writing at the link given. There’s much to say, friend.

   Reply

7. Andrew, Kevin, Tim, gang,
   Since we all agree that even our good works are wrought in us by the Spirit, that when God crowns our merits He crowns His own works, that everything we have is given, we Catholics can concede ( for argument sake ) to you Calvinists that God saves us without looking at our own merits. Even our desire to be saved comes from Him.
   But how about those of us who might be reprobates? Does God determine that without looking at our demerits? Or is reprobation, like election, a “free gift” too?

   Starting point for me is, God wants all men saved. If He doesn’t want all men saved, I can’t be sure He wants me saved. Without that Hope in sight, I am not going to strive for the victory.

   I don’t care how much we think we are saved today. We all know or have druggies or drunks in our families and circles of friends. We all know people who have sobered up or cleaned up, even for decades, only to disappoint us by dying from an overdose, or car wreck while drunk. My wife’s co-worker went on a diet and lost 100 lbs. of fat. He kept it off for a spell only to balloon up bigger than ever. I know of a Protestant guys who suffered from same-sex attraction, joined Exodus and by God’s grace, came out of it. They went on speaking tours giving moving testimonies and were inspirations to others. They now live with same-sex partners and are more cynical than ever.

   Guys, you love to talk about how deceitful and wicked the heart is. The fact that you think the Spirit witnesses to your spirit can be the delusion of seed that fell on good soil and sprouted for a while, can’t it? Maybe. just maybe, Jesus didn’t die for you after all.

   “Stay alert and pray”. “The devil comes like a thief in the night”.

   Until you pass through the Pearly Gates ( or enter Purgatory) your assurance of salvation is conjecture. We can all sin and go to hell.

   Reply

   1. Jim, our confession of faith (read: Westminster) indeed calls out predestination as an area where special care is needed. Know that as a duly ordained officer in my protestant communion, I typically look to the words of the historical Xtian confession to which my vows before God and men hold me for guidance. Ask your co-religionist Kenneth Winsmann, him and I have talked a lot on these matters (enough to creep out, the poor dear..).

      The fact is I deserve Hell. Full and complete and utter stop, right there. End of story. It’s how I came into this world. Ephesians 2 uses the word dead. That’s a strong word to describe me, in my sin.

      If you are Xtian, then you know that isn’t the full story. Jim, I have a God who loved me, and gave himself for me. He is my Father. I need no other argument, I need other plea. It is enough that Jesus died. And that he died. For me.

      Reply

8. Andrew, You wrote,
   “The fact is I deserve Hell. Full and complete and utter stop, right there. End of story. It’s how I came into this world.”

   Because of St. Augustine, who erred so grievously here, some non-Catholic Christians think babies come into the world deserving hell. The Bible says, “The wages of sin is death.”
   Babies haven’t had a chance to earn any wages yet. They can’t go to hell.

   Babies do come into the world undeserving of Heaven, though. While babies have no actual sin, they are dead. They have to be born again. That’s why we get ’em to the Baptismal font post haste. The Holy Spirit is poured into their little hearts, they are sealed with an indelible mark, adopted into God’s family, made members of Christ’s Mystical Body, the Church and have an absolute assurance of Heaven.

   Andrew, as a life long Protestant, I am sure you have lots of good memories growing up in a strong Calvinist (?) family. In no way do I want to take away from your life’s experience.

   Like your friend Jason can attest, crossing the Tiber is not a threat to a Protestant. You can bring all your gifts and knowledge with you. By becoming a Catholic you can keep God as your Father ( we do!). But you are missing your Mother and all your brothers and sisters, that heavenly cloud of witnesses as long as you stay outside the fullness of the Church. You are not being fed on the Eucharist as Christ meant you to be fed. You don’t know the assurance of doctrinal truth that comes from being in the Church built on Peter. You can’t assist your loved ones who have gone on before in death in the way Monica requested of her son Augustine, “remember me at the altar”.
   You can’t align your suffering, great and small, to those of Christ for the salvation of souls.

   Andrew, You have a lot. But there is so much more waiting for you.

   All the best

   Reply

   1. My personal history is fundamentlist Baptist from my birth to age 19. I joined the Orthodox Presbyerian Church at age 19, as a part of my asking my then girlfriend (now wife of 11 years, mother of my 3 children) to marry me. I was examined and accepted as a member in the OPC.

      Jim, I am in possession of an infallible assurance of faith, again, to borrow from my confession of faith, Westminster. I appreciate your kind words about me. But quite frankly, we are stangers, and you know not what I have or don’t have to offer. I appreciate that you like your church and feel I should join you in what you have signed up for. Further discussion about me you can direct to me at my blog. Kenneth commented once at a blog I have since taken down, I am here to share about the riches of the reformed faith, but I am not actually out to convert you or anyone, as I feel both you and Kenneth are seeking to convert me. I have good reason for staying where I am. Again, you may reach me via the ways I have established for anyone who wants further dialogue on these matters.

      My blog: http://adb95037.wordpress.com

      Grace and peace.

      Reply

   2. This is my writing best suited for you to read, if you want, for it is open ended, and you can leave any kind of comment. It will show you how I organize my thoughts. Only if you want to, Jim. Otherwise, see you around the blogs. Thanks for the interaction.

      http://adb95037.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/golf-and-theology/

      Reply
9. Pingback: Justification by Words | Out of His Mouth

10. Tim, I just re read this, and I’m praying God will send all Catholics to this site that they would believe the gospel and be saved. That they can see that the Gentiles not looking for salvation found it because the found it by faith alone in Christ alone. And the Jews ( RC’s of today) didn’t find it because they pursued it by works. Romans 10:4 ” Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to all who believe. But Tim Catholics will have no excuse as they try to smuggle their Character into the work of God’s grace, because Paul has made it clear, ” not of yourself” not of works” “apart from the Law” We have no meritorious part in our salvation. May God lift the veil that Roman Catholics see that the gospel of Trent says we do. They will find what the Jews found in Romans 9:30.

    Reply

    1. Thanks, Kevin,

       I agree, and I hope they read it, too. John Robbins, in his article on Antichrist at the Trinity Foundation, explained that one’s view on the gospel will affect one’s view on eschatology: “An earthly, man-centered, experience-centered religion will have a corresponding effect on views about eschatology.”

       Thus, the Reformers recognized as Antichrist he who came preaching against justification by faith alone.

       Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, looks for Antichrist behind anyone who is against celibate priests, eucharistic adoration, worship of Mary, intercession of the saints, and uses artificial birth control.

       That gives you an idea of what the Roman Catholic “gospel” is.

       Best regards,

       Tim

       Reply

11. Tim, good point. I’m watching the whole discussion on Jason’s site about contraceptives and I said to Jim. Will it matter what you believe about contraception if you come to God in an unacceptable way. No! IOW one can have the right view of contraception and be the person in Romans 9:31-32, or they can have a faulty view of contraception and be the person in Romans 9:30. The good news isn’t God will help us achieve His favor with His help, but that someone else lived the Law in our place and fulfilled all righteousness. At the heart of the Reformation was the distinction between Law and Gospel. We divide this word into two principle parts or kinds, one is called Law and the other Gospel. The Gospel is a doctrine that is not in us by nature, but revealed to us from heaven. The Law leads us to Christ. Ignorance of the distinction between Law and Gospel is one of the principal sources of abuses which corrupted Christianiyy and still does today. Thats why Popery is contrary to the gospel and is the very Antichrist.

    Reply

12. Tim, Horton says ” The Reformers saw Rome as teaching that the gospel was a simpler and easier law than that of the OT. Jesus was a kinder, gentler Moses. Instead of following allot of rules , God expects only love and heart felt surrender. Calvin replied” as if we could consider anything more difficult than loving God with all of our HSM. Law can do nothing but condemn man. Rome can only see the gospel as that which enables. Believers to become righteous by obedience and that which is compensation for their lack, not realizing the law requires perfection. To confuse them is to corrupt faith at its core.”

    Reply

13. Hi Tim, I came upon a site called” A Puritan’s mind” The early church and justification” Dr.C. Mathew McMahon It is a list of about 30 quotes from the early fathers that say we are justified by faith alone. You may have this list, vut I thought it would be a great resource for you when you make the argument. These quotes codemn the worthiness of merit false gospel. The gospel isnt go out and do your part, but those of faith are justified by God alone. K

    Reply

    1. KEVIN–
       You said: “The gospel isnt go out and do your part, but those of faith are justified by God alone.”

       As you would say “I’m not sure it can be said better than this.” So much so that the Romanists would agree with you.

       Reply

       1. In” A Puritan’s mind” The early church and justification”, Dr.C. Mathew McMahon says this:
          “It is certain that the formulations around the doctrine were not as defined and critically studied as in the time of the Reformation, of thereafter, but such a study in the time of the early church was unnecessary since justification was an accepted Christian truth. Usually heretics press the church to deal with certain issues throughout its life. In the early church many of the disputes surrounded the nature and persons of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Yet even in the midst of those tumultuous debates, the doctrine of justification by faith was still taught and received as biblical, right and true. There was no need to have a debate around that which was accepted as biblical.”

          This is exactly the same reason the Roman Catholics use to explain developing doctrine–EXACTLY! Looks like the apple didn’t fall too far from the tree.

          Reply

       2. Bob, unfortunately Roman Catholic theology doesn’t teach that. It teaches that works are meritorious in justification. Rome says you are justified cooperating with His grace, but Paul says one is justified” FREELY by His grace.” Its the difference between heaven and hell. God bless.

          Reply

          1. KEVIN–
             You said: “Bob, unfortunately Roman Catholic theology doesn’t teach that. It teaches that works are meritorious in justification.”

             They teach that works are meritorious to increase justification, which is practicing holiness and love. To me, that is sanctification, so it’s a matter of definition.

             You also said: “Rome says you are justified cooperating with His grace, but Paul says one is justified” FREELY by His grace.”

             Rome says your cooperation increases justification, which is freely given initially by the grace of God.
             From the CCC:
             1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity(love) with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:
             “When God touches man’s heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God’s grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God’s sight.”–Council of Trent (1547): DS 1525.
             And this: 1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.–Cf. Jn 1:12-18; 17:3; Rom 8:14-17; 2 Pet 1:3-4.
             And even this: 1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life: (Council of Trent:DS 1529)
             “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.”– Rom 3:21-26.

             Kevin, what part of “free grace by the mercy of God by Christ’s merits and not of our own to be received through faith” do you not understand? This is taught by the Council of Trent and the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church.

             You also said: “Its the difference between heaven and hell. God bless.”

             Who taught you that, John MacArthur?
             Figgers.
             But if you claim the “once justified means one is saved” doctrine is true, then Catholics are saved regardless of what you say they do. They believe that they are justified by God’s grace through faith. That is the gospel. Read it and rejoice!

             Reply

             1. Bob, you wrote,

                “To me, that is sanctification, so it’s a matter of definition.”

                Could you rewrite Catechism paragraphs 1992, 1993 and 1996, but insert “sanctification” wherever you think that is what is meant by “justification” so we have a better idea of what you mean?

                Thanks,

                Tim

             2. TIM–
                You said: “Could you rewrite Catechism paragraphs 1992, 1993 and 1996, but insert “sanctification” wherever you think that is what is meant by “justification” so we have a better idea of what you mean?”

                No. Why would I want to do that?
                I said:
                “They teach that works are meritorious to increase justification, which is practicing holiness and love. To me, that is sanctification, so it’s a matter of definition.

                In my opinion, doing good works such as love and charity receiving sacraments and worshipping Jesus are all a part of sanctification, which Catholics teach increases justification. I personally believe that sanctification is separate from, not a part of justification. So in my opinion, it is a matter of definition, and not a condemning difference. Justification is justification, no matter how you slice it. The degree of justification doesn’t matter, you’re still in God’s grace.
                That being said, how much you are sanctified (the degree of justification) plays a part in how you are able to persevere till the end. The more you practice love and holiness, the harder it becomes for you to become apostate (fall from grace).
                Yes, I am Arminian, not Calvinist.

             3. Thank you. Do I understand from you then that you believe we increase our justification by being holy and loving our neighbor?

                Tim

             4. Bob, does Rome believe that one is FINALLY” justified by God’s grace thru faith” Genesis 15:6 ” Abraham believed God and he was counted righteous. ” do you see any merit or works in Abe’s final justification here. Answer No. Paul uses the word daikaiousinae for final justification. He could have never, ever meant the internal state of affairs at the end of your life. In Rome final justification is a recognition of an intrinsic qualification for a reward, but for Paul it was a declaration about soneone intrinsically and utterly unqualified. God bless k

14. KEVIN–
    You said: ” Paul uses the word daikaiousinae for final justification. He could have never, ever meant the internal state of affairs at the end of your life. ”

    Really? Who taught you that?
    δικαιοσύνη
    dikaiosynē / dē-kī-o-sü’-nā
    Part of Speech: feminine noun
    Root Word (Etymology)
    From δίκαιος (G1342)
    The KJV translates Strongs G1343 in the following manner: righteousness (92x). How many? 92 times!
    Outline of Biblical Usage
    I.in a broad sense: state of him who is as he ought to be, righteousness, the condition acceptable to God
    A.the doctrine concerning the way in which man may attain a state approved of God
    B.integrity, virtue, purity of life, rightness, correctness of thinking feeling, and acting
    II.in a narrower sense, justice or the virtue which gives each his due
    Strong’s Definitions δικαιοσύνη dikaiosýnē, dik-ah-yos-oo’-nay; from G1342; equity (of character or act); specially (Christian) justification:—righteousness.

    That word does not specify “finally” or “final”. Glorification to me indicates finality. That is what we get when we persevere to the end.

    You also said: “In Rome final justification is a recognition of an intrinsic qualification for a reward, but for Paul it was a declaration about soneone intrinsically and utterly unqualified. ”

    Whatever, man. Justified is justified. And now that you have been given, more is required. Matthew 25:14-30. And look what happens when you don’t. That doesn’t make Him a mean God. It makes him just.
    Paul says to those justified, “Rejoice! Again, I say, REJOICE!”
    Me too!

    Reply

15. ” really who taught you that” and now you have been given more is required” required for what? Romans 4:5, Paul says God justifies a wicked man, not a righteous man. There is nothing more required to be finally justified before God. Watch ” Abraham believed God and he was counted righteous ” He simply believed the promise and he was righteous. Gal:3:6. Our works arent meritorious in justification, we are justified freely by his grace. And Romans 4:16 says if a RC wants to be justified by grace alone, it will have to be by faith alone. K

    Reply

    1. KEVIN–
       You said: “Watch ” Abraham believed God and he was counted righteous ” He simply believed the promise and he was righteous.”…And Romans 4:16 says if a RC wants to be justified by grace alone, it will have to be by faith alone.

       Ok. Watch this:
       James says 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
       22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works,
       23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God.
       24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

       Unless you rip James out of your bible, you will never be able to defend your position. Martin Luther tried and failed.
       The Romanists never have maintained works righteousness. That is a fairy tale told by Calvinists. Works are always coupled with faith. And faith is never alone. The bible says so. If you maintain faith alone, then you are a clanging cymbal–you are nothing. 1Cor 13

       You quote Galatians 3:6? Well, here’s Galatians 5:6 “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.”

       Paul told the Romans( 2:13 )For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. Why?
       Because (Gal 5:13) For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
       14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
       And again:
       Gal 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.
       Gal 5:25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.

       Your sellin’ faith alone? Well, I’m not buyin’. I actually read my bible.

       Reply

16. Ephessians 2:8″ not that of yourselves” Romans 8:33 ” God alone” Tim has a great article on James 2, have you read it ? God bless

    Reply

    1. KEVIN–
       You said: “Ephessians 2:8″ not that of yourselves” Romans 8:33 ” God alone”

       Since when does “faith alone” equate with “God alone”? Do you think they are interchangeable? I don’t.

       Kevin, read with me the verse you cite and the two after them:
       Eph 2:8ff “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

       If we generate works ourselves that were not ordained by God, then it is not a gift, and we are trying to save ourselves by our own works. I just quoted from the CCC where the Catholic Church teaches justification by grace from God:
       “When God touches man’s heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God’s grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God’s sight.”–Council of Trent (1547): DS 1525.
       And this: 1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.–Cf. Jn 1:12-18; 17:3; Rom 8:14-17; 2 Pet 1:3-4.

       What part of that do you not understand?

       You also said: “Tim has a great article on James 2, have you read it ? ”

       Yes. There is a wealth of articles and commentaries on James 2. And everyone has a little different take on what it means.
       Hail Sola Scriptura! It is, after all, the Protestant way.

       Thanks–

       Bob

       Reply

       1. Hi Bob, I explained this to you a couple years ago, but I will give you the Reformed position and show you how the RC position is a different gospel. Incidentally Tim provides a great article just above in a post he left me, I think by a man named Robbins. You should read it. The reason we say faith alone is because faith is the alone instrument that receives our justification ( Christ) and brings Him to the heart. As important as love is, it always stretches out and is second in natural order. Only faith can receive Christ’s merits which are fully sufficient to justify us. Iow, Christ’s merits are applied to us tgru faith alone. There isnt a virtue connected to faith that merits the acceptance of God. Roman Catholicism wrongly teaches their people that they merit the merit of Christ. So, instead of sacraments being simply the sign and seal of grace freely received by faith, Rome said sacraments were merit for the strong. The medieval church made a grave error in thinking the righteouness needed for salvation was accumulated inherently thru doing sacraments. Bob, the bible says we are bad, real bad. The law requires perfection. God doesnt relent to those who do not give give perfect, personal ,perpetual obedience. Rome thought that the gospel enabled a person by obedience and compensation for their lack to procure salvation. But no one can keep the law fully. It was given for transgressions. Jesus, however was good, and its hard to keep a good man down. He lived the law in our place and fulfilled all righteouness. He accomplished our salvation and offers it as a gift in the gospel. The greatest corruption of faith and the source of all heresy in the church is the conflation of law and gospel. When Paul speaks of the law, he is ALWAYS speaking of the whole law. Sometimes he says law, sometimes works of law , sometimes works. This includes love, which is the highest expression of the law. James and Paul say violating one part is violating the whole law. In fact in Philippians 3 Paul counts all his righteouness as dung, not his sin. He puts all his effort in one column, and wants to be found in the righteouness of God that comes by faith. James 2 does the Roman argument no good. James isnt teaching works are meritorious in justification, he simply is saying faith works. Romans 5:10 says we will be saved by his life, not ours. Our works in sanctification can only be our reasonable service of worship. Paul prays for his brothrrs in the flesh for their salvation, because although they had a zeal for God, it wasn’t in accordance with knowledge. Not knowing about the righteouness of Christ they sought to establish their own. And as Tim pointed out to you Christ is the END of the law for righteouness to all who believe. Paul makes a clear distinction between justification and sanctification. He doesnt separate them, but distinguishes them. The difference between these 2 systems is the difference between heaven and hell. God bless. K

          Reply

          1. KEVIN–
             Yes, I know, we have been round and round over this. Looks like you’re gonna stand your ground and I’m gonna stand mine.

             You said: “Roman Catholicism wrongly teaches their people that they merit the merit of Christ.”

             No, they don’t. Merit comes from God, one can’t generate their own merit that can please God. Can you show me where the RC teaches that?

             You also said: “Paul makes a clear distinction between justification and sanctification. He doesnt separate them, but distinguishes them. The difference between these 2 systems is the difference between heaven and hell.”

             You’re gonna have to prove this one to me. Where have you seen or even heard of someone going to heaven or hell because of that difference? The bible sure doesn’t teach it.

             Reply

             1. Did you just ssk me where I have ever seen someone going to heaven or hell over it? Have you seen there was a reformation. To deny that is to deny the milinium of missionary work to Catholics with the gospel of scripture. Catholics are a mission field, make no mistake about it. K

             2. KEVIN–
                You said: “Did you just ssk me where I have ever seen someone going to heaven or hell over it? Have you seen there was a reformation. To deny that is to deny the milinium of missionary work to Catholics with the gospel of scripture. Catholics are a mission field, make no mistake about it. K”

                Do you honestly believe the Reformation was about who is going to hell or not? Both sides know that God is the judge of that. It had everything to do with reforming the Church–to do away with abuses that had crept in over time. Anathema and excommunication are Church discipline for fighting heresy, not adjudicating whether one goes to heaven or hell.
                It is corrupt and sinful people that turned it into a matter of heaven and hell and they went as far as killing each other over it. Are you trying to perpetuate that kind of thinking?

                People go to hell through their own fault when they choose not to repent. C. S. Lewis said it this way:
                “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in hell chose it. Without that self-choice there could be no hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened. ”

17. TIM–
    You said: “Thank you. Do I understand from you then that you believe we increase our justification by being holy and loving our neighbor?”

    If you will re-read my response, I said:
    “In my opinion, doing good works such as love and charity receiving sacraments and worshipping Jesus are all a part of sanctification, which Catholics teach increases justification. I personally believe that sanctification is separate from, not a part of justification. So in my opinion, it is a matter of definition, and not a condemning difference.”

    That should have pre-answered your question.

    Thanks–

    Bob

    Reply

    1. It didn’t pre-answer the question, and I don’t understand what you’re saying. You wrote that sanctification includes “doing good works such as love and charity” and further that “how much you are sanctified” is the same as “the degree of justification”. Thus, it seems to me that you are saying that how much you are sanctified, or the degree of your justification, is increased by being holy and loving our neighbor. Is that what you believe?

       Thanks,
       Tim

       Reply

       1. TIM–
          You concluded: “Thus, it seems to me that you are saying that how much you are sanctified, or the degree of your justification, is increased by being holy and loving our neighbor. Is that what you believe?”

          I believe there is no condemning difference in what the Catholics believe and what I believe in that respect.

          I look at sanctification as strengthening and training. A great example is putting on the full armor of God in Ephesians 6. If Catholics say that is increasing justification, I have no problem with that. By either definition, it helps me persevere to the end. And that is what matters.

          Reply

          1. Hi Bob, you said to Tim ” I dont believe there is any condemning difference in what Catholics believe and what I believe” You probably know this but , you are correct that there is no difference between what you believe and what Catholics believe, but you are incorrect according to the Reformed reading of scripture that its not condemning. It is unequivocally clear from scripture that those who believe Catholic doctrines, that their works are meritorious in justification are not saved Christians. God bless k

             Reply

18. Bob, you have been here for 2 years and Tim’s whole eschatology and articles are on Roman Catholicism and the Papacy as antchrist and the rise of its false religion, and then you ask if we believe the same gospel or its an issue of heaven and hell. Well I have an uncanny ability to state the obviuos. It is a false religion with a false gospel, steeped in bread worship and Mary worship. I cant speak for anyone else on this site, but yes I will continue to perpetuate what the reformers believed, that the Papacy is the seat of antchrist and Trent anathamatized the gospel of scripture. I do not consider Roman Catholics brothers and sisters in Christ, but in serious need of the gospel of scripture. I believe they must repent of their idolatries and false gospel of worthiness of merit and believe the gospel of scripture. I make no apologies for my position. I believe God is calling His elect out of that communion immediately. There are true believers in that communion, but they cant remain in there. If a person is a believer in the RC , he is a bad Catholic. I dont believe you can be a good Catholic and be saved. God bless. K

    Reply

    1. Do you know all that as an infallible fact or do you claim that you could be wrong? Tim claims to be infallible when he says he knows for a fact that Catholics are idolaters.

       I am very well aware of what you guys claim on this blog. I just happen to disagree. The so called “evidence” to back your claims have so many holes that they could hardly be considered overwhelming. That makes me stand with my conviction that you may be wrong in your conclusions.

       Reply

19. Bob, imho, its hard to know what you believe. You can never really ever be pinned down. I was watching your conversation with Tim on justification and sanctification. You are one of the best I have ever seen not giving a straight answer. For instance he asked you a simple yes or no question, do you believe justification is increased thru being holy or loving neighbor? But you always try to middle the bet. You know, like well either way is fine, its not a matter of condemnation. Roman Catholicism says justication is increased thru holy living and loving neighbor. Yes you agree or no you dont. How about a straight answer Bob. Its the difference between the true gospel and a false one. Heaven and hell. You are a smart person. You have to see that cooperating with grace isnt the same as ” freely by His grace”. Because Paul says ” if its by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, or grace is no longer grace. As soon as any effort enters into God’s work of grace, it is no longer by grace. If you go down the road of law at all ( doing, loving, being) you arevfallen from grace and severed from Christ. Galatians 5:1-4. The whole book of Galatians is devoted to the antithesis of hearing by faith and works in justification. And Paul wouldnt budge 2:5. K

    Reply

20. KEVIN–
    You said: “Roman Catholicism wrongly teaches their people that they merit the merit of Christ.”

    And I said: “No, they don’t. Merit comes from God, one can’t generate their own merit that can please God. Can you show me where the RC teaches that?”

    And again you said: “I believe they must repent of their idolatries and false gospel of worthiness of merit and believe the gospel of scripture. I make no apologies for my position.”

    And so far you haven’t given an apology because you can’t. But at least try. Can you show me where the RC officially teaches their people that they merit the merit of Christ?

    Reply

21. KEVIN–
    “I was watching your conversation with Tim on justification and sanctification. You are one of the best I have ever seen not giving a straight answer. For instance he asked you a simple yes or no question, do you believe justification is increased thru being holy or loving neighbor?”

    And I told him a straight answer. If the RC definition of increasing justification is the same as my definition of sanctification, then yes. If the RC “increase in justification” strengthens me so that I can persevere to the end, then yes, I can agree with that. What was so hard to understand about that?

    Reply

22. Thanks Bob, so I think I can clarify your position for Tim. Please correct me if Im wrong. Holy deeds and loving neighbor increases justification as Rome teaches , you just call that sanctification. I submit to you it wouldnt matter if you called it lemonade, Paul allows nothing the Holy Spirit does in us to be the grounds of justification. He teaches we are justified by Christ righteousness alone imputed by faith. Rome cant get around this by smuggling their character into God’s work of grace. No offense, but I wont do your homework for you on meriting the merit of Christ. Read all the canons of Trent, where you will find phrases like ” converted to their own justification ” ” as a result to their merits and good works. ” ” who truly merit eternal life” ” if anyone says that the impious is justified only by confidence in divine mercy, and nothing else is required for the grace of justification” Open your eyes Bob, in Roman Catholicism one merits eternal life contra the teaching of scripture that it is a free gift .Romans 6:23. God bless. Please pull up Calvin on meriting the merit of Christ. K

    Reply

    1. KEVIN–
       Ok, Mr Straight-answer Guy. Here are a couple questions:

       Are you saying sanctification is not necessary? Yes or No?

       Why do you think God is going to let you into heaven without being sanctified?

       Reply

23. KEVIN–
    You said: “No offense, but I wont do your homework for you on meriting the merit of Christ.”

    Figgers. That was my assignment to you for homework. Slacker.

    And you said: “Read all the canons of Trent, where you will find phrases like ” converted to their own justification ” ” as a result to their merits and good works. ” ” who truly merit eternal life” ” if anyone says that the impious is justified only by confidence in divine mercy, and nothing else is required for the grace of justification”

    I just quoted two of them from Trent that shows your view is not the case. You see, I did my homework. You didn’t.
    You want more?
    2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

    Who’s merit is it? God’s!

    2025 We can have merit in God’s sight only because of God’s free plan to associate man with the work of his grace. Merit is to be ascribed in the first place to the grace of God, and secondly to man’s collaboration. Man’s merit is due to God.

    Oh, and here’s a good one:
    2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.

    What? We need God’s grace for meritorious actions? I thought you said the Catholic Church teaches their people that they merit the merit of Christ.

    But wait, there’s more!

    2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.

    2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God’s gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us “co-heirs” with Christ and worthy of obtaining “the promised inheritance of eternal life.” The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness. “Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God’s gifts.”

    The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the only reason we have any merit at all is because of Christ and the grace of God.
    Now that you have been schooled on the official teaching of the RCC, Kevin, you are now responsible for any misrepresentation you have maintained about Catholics in this regard.

    Reply

24. Im already sanctified. Hebrews 10: 10 ” By this will we have been sanctified thru the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” this is profound, one offering on the cross justified, sanctified, and glorified me , all aorist past tense. Im just living out the miracle. Paul puts it again in 1 Corinthians 1:30″ But by His doing you are in Christ , who became to us wisdom from God, and righteouness and sanctification and redemption. All of salvation was forensic for Paul. God didnt infuse the Jews at passover , who deserved the same thing as the Egyptians, with sanctifying grace, He passed over them. Because of Christ’s blood and righteouness God has passed over all of our sins. It is a person that is offered, not a philosophical derivative off that person. ” for the one who joins himself to Christ is one Spirit with Him. Believers posess Christ in their heart and are incorporated into His body through the SPIRIT. The Spirit brings us all the victory spoils including perseverance. But you can see that the Roman Catholic system of meritoriousness of works in justification is the antithesis to the gospel. K

    Reply

    1. Thx for this summary Kevin. My wife and I found this little part quite helpful distinguishing sanctification and justification.

       Reply

       1. John, as I read back through my post I must point out that although our justification and sanctification is talked about in aorist past tense for instance ” to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus” he says this to the rag tag Corinthians. So in one sense our sanctification is completed through Christ, yet as Tim has pointed out that we are being sanctified by God through the Word of God in the process of becoming holy. Jesus said Father sanctify them in truth, thy word is truth. It is God who sanctifies us through his word. I believe the word means to be set apart from sin and set apart unto God. Its a work of God as is all of salvation. The Roman error is to confuse justification with sanctification and regeneration. So in Rome there is a final justification based on the life lived. If this were the case, and its not, Paul could not say in Romans 8:1 there is now no condemnation for those in Christ. I believe Christians are living out an acceptance we already have, where Catholics are meriting that acceptance daily. IOW, for us God gives us grace and we do, thats unmerited favor. In Rome they do and God gives them grace. Thats law. When I asked my Catholic friend are you justified, she said no but I’m trying to get their everyday and so is my family. Our hearts should break for Catholics who it seems to me run into the same issues of the Jews in Romans 9:30- 10:4.

          Reply

          1. Thx for the clarification and further explanation Kevin. And yes, we should pray earnestly for the Lord to send out labourers into His harvest.

             Reply

25. ” and secondly to man’s collaboration ” partly God ,partly you. Here is how it works in Rome. You do your level best and God gives you grace , the more you do your level best the more grace he gives you. Thats law. Romans 11:6 ” if its by grace, it is no longer by works, or grace is no longer grace” CCC 2006 merit = recompense owed ” Rome tries to smuggle their character into God’s work of grace, but it doesnt pass the smell test. Paul never relents Galatians 2:5. K

    Reply

    1. KEVIN–
       You said: “Here is how it works in Rome. You do your level best and God gives you grace , the more you do your level best the more grace he gives you.”

       I just showed you what Rome teaches and yet you still persist misrepresenting them. Well, it’s your choice. Readers will see how you really are.

       And you said: “Im already sanctified. Hebrews 10: 10 ” By this will we have been sanctified thru the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” this is profound, one offering on the cross justified, sanctified, and glorified me , all aorist past tense. Im just living out the miracle.”

       It’s profound alright. Your presumption is very profound. Now that you are glorified and in heaven already, there is no reason for you to persevere. You don’t have to put on the armor of God. No need for you to be concerned about running the race, you’ve won. You don’t have to be ready and watchful for the bridegroom to arrive. You are already there with Christ.

       Even Paul didn’t go that far.

       But I’ll have to admit, your story does sound a lot more appealing. You don’t even have to take responsibility for your own actions anymore. You don’t have to fight the good fight. Eat, drink, and be merry. Don’t worry about the straight and narrow, all the blame is on Jesus now. It’s not your fault. And God will say to you…er…uh…Jesus, “Well done, my good and faithful servant.”

       Reply

26. The way to look at it is those who have true saving faith will desire tobobey God, live holy, pick up their cross etc. But that isnt the ground for our salvation. It is solely the righteouness of Christ imputed by faith. The verses Rome sees as perscriptive, scripture sees as descriptive ofva believer. Rome says its partly by faith and partly by works. Thats not the gospel. God bless. K

    Reply

    1. KEVIN–
       You said: “The way to look at it is those who have true saving faith will desire to obey God, live holy, pick up their cross etc. ”

       But that is not what you said. You said “Im already sanctified… one offering on the cross justified, sanctified, and glorified me , all aorist past tense.”

       “Will desire” is future tense. “Is desiring” is present tense. You Calvinists always look at things from the end of history and try to apply it to present day. That is why you have such problem with works. The rest of us live our lives a moment at a time, and when we don’t see things your way, you call it a false gospel. Aorist past tense is a concept that can explain things from outside the time continuum, but the problem is you can’t apply it to the present time. Aorist past tense doesn’t “work”. Therefore, Calvinists try to explain away all the things the Bible says we must do in order to be saved, by saying it’s already done.
       Let me tell you something, Kevin. The devil is pretty slick and there is many a slip between the cup and lip. Telling those of us who recognize it that we are followers of a false gospel is in itself false.

       Be doers (present tense) and not just hearers (present tense).
       What are you doing to store up treasures in heaven? (present tense)
       Jesus said “IFyou eat my flesh and drink my blood I will raise you up on the last day.” (conditional future tense)

       Reply

       1. Bob, look at the history of the Roman Catholic church, tell me they didnt have problems with works. Your premise that Calvinists “look at it from the end of history” means they dont desire to obey God is wrong. I submit that those who understand we cant lose our salvation desire more to obey God out of thanksgiving for a free gift that is assured by the blood and righteouness of Christ. One reason for the reformation was the Reformers returned the assurance of salvation that scripture taught, but Roman Catholicism frightened out of their people. Can you think of a more convienient system for making money than selling Christ’s merits by telling peope they can never be assured of their salvation. You need to buy masses and indulgences to get grandma out of trouble. Clever huh. And yet Paul says rejoice again I say rejoice. He calls the gospel good news. I heard a priest say we are all on a long journey to perfection. I thought buddy if your on a long journey to perfection that ain’t good news. K

          Reply

          1. Yes, Kevin, the Reformation was all about reforming the Church. Why? Because there were abuses!
             Guess what? The Roman Catholic Church does not sell indulgences today. And do you know what else?
             The Roman Catholic Church does not teach that you have to pay money to get your loved ones out of Purgatory.
             But I’ll betcha you had to pay your Protestant Church’s preacher to get married, didn’t you? What would’ve happened if you didn’t pay, huh? Would you have still been married? Would he have reneged and claimed the wedding invalid to make you live together in sin? How stupid is that?
             And don’t let anybody kid you, if you don’t toe the line in the Presbyterian Church, they’ll kick you out, too.
             Just ask Jason Stellman. He was on the committee that did that sort of thing. Heck, just ask Walt or Dr. Gus.
             If you start spreading anything around that is not completely in line with what they believe, you will be disciplined.

             Reply

       2. Bob, ” if you eat my flesh and drink my blood I will lift you up on the last day” This is consistent with Reformed theology. Coming and believing, which Jesus said is eating and drinking, brings the promise of eternal life. Since Paul is clear that the righteous shall LIVE by faith. You see it is faith that brings us the free gift of eternal life Romans 6:23. We LIVE by faith. Man does not live by bread alone but every WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of God. It is faith in his words that bring life. Catholics are failing kidney patients who have to constantly get a tranfusion to live. But the flesh profits nothing. It is the Spirit who brings life. Listen to Paul ” for the one who joins himself to the Lord is one SPIRIT with Him” we are united to Him thru the Spirit by faith, reception in the heart, not with the mouth. K

          Reply

          1. KEVIN–
             You said: ” if you eat my flesh and drink my blood I will lift you up on the last day” This is consistent with Reformed theology. Coming and believing, which Jesus said is eating and drinking, brings the promise of eternal life. Since Paul is clear that the righteous shall LIVE by faith. You see it is faith that brings us the free gift of eternal life Romans 6:23. We LIVE by faith. Man does not live by bread alone but every WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of God. It is faith in his words that bring life. Catholics are failing kidney patients who have to constantly get a tranfusion to live. But the flesh profits nothing. It is the Spirit who brings life.

             And except for the failing kidney patients part, that is consistant with Roman theology.

             And you also said: “Listen to Paul ” for the one who joins himself to the Lord is one SPIRIT with Him” we are united to Him thru the Spirit by faith, reception in the heart, not with the mouth.”

             And yet you eat and drink in faith with your mouth at the Lord’s Supper. It may only be crackers and grape juice at your church, but at least you eat in faith that it is the Body and Blood of Christ you are celebrating. Anything else would be a sacrilege.

             From the PCUSA Book of Common Worship on the Lords Supper:
             Epiclesis
             Gracious God,
             pour out your Holy Spirit upon us
             and upon these your gifts of bread and wine,
             that the bread we break
             and the cup we bless
             may be the communion of the body and blood of Christ.
             By your Spirit make us one with all who share this feast,
             united in ministry in every place.
             As this bread is Christ’s body for us,
             send us out to be the body of Christ in the world.
             Communion
             The people may gather around the table to receive the bread and cup. Or the people may go to persons serving the elements. Or the bread and cup may be served to the people where they are.
             The following may be used:
             In giving the bread:
             The body of Christ, given for you. Amen.
             In giving the cup:
             The blood of Christ, shed for you. Amen.

             This is from the Presbyterian Book of Common Worship, no less. You are definitely doing more than coming and believing.
             And this is priceless:
             You said: “Catholics are failing kidney patients who have to constantly get a tranfusion to live. ”
             And yet in the very communion rite of your church I find this:
             Gracious God,
             you have made us one with all your people in heaven and on earth.
             You have fed us with the bread of life
             and renewed us for your service.

             What? A transfusion with the bread of life to renew you for God’s service. That part of what you say the Catholics do in their false gospel.
             Doesn’t that make you a hypo___……….. Well, I won’t say it outloud. That word seems to rile people around here.

             Reply

27. Bob, Paul speaks to the rag tag Corinthians who had so many issues with obedience and refers to them in 1 Corinthians 1 as those who have been sanctified. You have to understand the difference between the already / not yet. We are already sanctified , justified, glorified in a forensic sense because it was all payed for at the cross as the verse in Hebrews 10:10 says. So when a person repents and believes ex. The tax collector ,he went gome righteous. Im no more righteous today than the first day I believed in the eyes of God, because I am ” in Christ” by faith alone and God counts the righteouness of Christ to my account. Thats why Paul says ” the righteous ” shall live by faith. He calls believers righteous. Are they inherently righteous? No But they are righteous because the righteouness of Christ has been transfered to us. So, even though im living out my sanctification in the not yet, im already sanctified in heaven. And thats why verses like Heb. 10:10, 1 Corinthians 1:30, and the opening of 1 Corinthians speaks of Sanctification in the past tense. Thats why Romans 8:28 the golden chain of salvation is all past tense, those who he foreknew , he called, he justified, he glorified etc. Its why he says we are already seated in heavenlies, its why Ephessians 1:7 says we already have redemption. And its why Peter says we already have an inheritance that cant go away, we are already heirs etc. The law ( RC gospel) says do this and you shall live, but the true gospel says LIVE and you will do this. Our salvation has been finished before we believe, we have passed out of judgment John 5:24. Paul says we have been transfered out of the domain of darkness into the kingdom of life. Romans 4:25 says He was delivered over for my transgressions and raised for my justification. When He was raised so were all believers, Him being the firstfruits. Hope this helps. So, yes Im working out my salvation with fear and trembling as I pursue holiness, but Im assured of the outcome, so much that Paul speaks of present and future parts as past tense. Its a promise. Thats why the whole notion in the RC that God gives you a little juju and you got to get there, and if you dont get there you dont get there, goes against all that Christ already accomplished, namely our redemption. As Spurgeon said, we are in a saved state, not a savable state. K

    Reply

28. KEVIN–
    You said: “So, even though im living out my sanctification in the not yet, im already sanctified in heaven.”
    and
    “The law ( RC gospel) says do this and you shall live, but the true gospel says LIVE and you will do this.”
    and
    “we are in a saved state, not a savable state”

    These are all great catch phrases for the Calvinist viewpoint.
    But it’s an excuse for the belief that those who fall from grace were never saved to begin with. There are too many things in scripture that say otherwise. It’s just bad logic. It all boils down to this:
    One can never be apostate if one has not believed to begin with.
    Heb 6:4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

    So in the light of “The law ( RC gospel) says do this and you shall live, but the true gospel says LIVE and you will do this”, let’s look at a parable.

    Mat 21:28 “ A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, ‘Son, go work today in the vineyard.’
    “And he answered, ‘I will not’; but afterward he regretted it and went. “The man came to the second and said the same thing; and he answered, ‘I will, sir’; but he did not go.
    “Which of the two did the will of his father?”

    1. Do this and you shall live.
    2. Live and you shall do this.
    Kevin, which of the two does the will of the Father and lives?

    Reply

29. Bob, you misunderstand. Calvin didnt believe that Christ was eaten by the mouth. The heart is brought to remembrance of his death on the cross, and this nourishes or strengthens our faith, thru the mind of our heart in remebrance and commemoration . You remember this right ” do this in remembrance of me ” Christ isnt in the bread, but the one taking the bread by faith thru the Spirit. Apart from the Spirit, Word and faith its just bread. And this is important to remember, we dont go to the supper to be forgiven, but to thank Him for a forgiveness we already posess Ephessians 1:7. Yes we confess our sins, but they are already forgiven at the cross, which was done once ” at the consumation of the ages ” and is a blanket across history. The Roman mass , being the ritual of antichrist is exactly the opposite. It is historically called the work of the people. It is meriting increase of grace and justice by eating Christ carnally. It is efficacious for sins. The participant offers himself and Christ up again co propitiating sins. It is the summit of unbelief. It denies the one time sufficient sacrifice of the cross. It denies a finished atonement. It is the church usurping the finished work of Christ as the agency of salvation as a continuing incarnation thru the acts of the church. But churches arent continuing incarnations. The can carry out his mission, pass along his message, obey him, imitate him, but it cant replace his uniquely finished work. Churches dont connect us to God. No church owns God. The church isnt the same as Jesus in the world. He comes to us in the gospel at his choosing. Sometimes that’s in the church and sometimes outside of it. The Spirit blows where and when He wills. The church is the recepient of grace, not the provider. The Spirit delivers all of Christ’s victory spoils, including bringing fiducia to the heart. Hope this helps. K

    Reply

    1. KEVIN!
       You said: “It is meriting increase of grace and justice by eating Christ carnally.”

       WOW! With that comment I am absolutely sure you know nothing about Catholics. Christians have been accused of that since the second century. Who in the world taught you that?
       Or did you make this up on your own?
       Give me a straight answer.

       Reply

30. Bob, thanks for the talk. Its obvious to me you really don’t understand Roman Catholic doctrine. Eating the the substantial body blood and soul and divinity of Christ in the Roman Eucharist is what is necessary to live and it is meriting increase in grace and justice. Like I said, it could be compared to a failing kidney patient needing an transfusion. It is physical. All the best. K

    Reply

31. KEVIN–
    Oh no, your not getting away that easily!
    You said: “It is meriting increase of grace and justice by eating Christ carnally.” And then you turned right around and said, “Eating the the substantial body blood and soul and divinity of Christ in the Roman Eucharist is what is necessary to live”
    You are using carnally and substantial interchangeably. That is why you are ignorant of Catholic doctrine.
    Jesus said “It is the Spirit who gives life(substantial); the flesh(carnally) profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life (substance).
    And your buddy Paul said the same thing:
    Rom 8:6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
    1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”
    The Body of Christ is taken under the form of bread, not under the form of flesh. The Blood of Christ is taken under the form of wine, not under the form of blood.

    Kevin, you have now been briefed on this. Now you are responsible for any misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine on this matter.

    And you still did not answer my question Mr. Straight Answer Man. In light of Mat 21:28:
    1. Do this and you shall live.
    2. Live and you shall do this.
    Kevin, which of the two does the will of the Father and lives?

    Reply

32. Bob, indeed Romanism is carnality of the highest order. Roman Catholicism and its carnal doctrines can only be described as the height of unbelief. The writer of Hebrews warned the Jews church that those who desired a physical altar, a physical sacrifice, and a physical priesthood was shrinking back in faith. Christ’s altar, sacrifice, and prieshood is in heaven. God doesnt dwell in buildings or on altars anymore, but in the heart of his people. The grace nature innerconection and the church as an ongoing incarnation is indeed the 2 faulty axioms of Romanism. Fallen creation has no capacity for grace. Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden, Jesus came to his own, fallen creation, and they received Him not. Some day God wil destroy this heavens and earth. Grace comes from heaven supernaturally. Rome is wrong, and gives to much to the natural law. In closing, it is the Spirit that gives life, not the physical. K

    Reply

33. KEVIN–
    You said to me: “I was watching your conversation with Tim on justification and sanctification. You are one of the best I have ever seen not giving a straight answer.”

    So…..
    And you still did not answer my question Mr. Straight Answer Man. In light of Mat 21:28:
    1. Do this and you shall live.
    2. Live and you shall do this.
    Kevin, which of the two does the will of the Father and lives?

    Reply

34. Bob, the first repented and believed was justified by faith which resulted in obedience. Live and you shall do this. The second never had saving faith. Neither one fits the Catholic paradigm, do this and you shall life.

    Reply

35. KEVIN–
    Bob, the first repented and believed was justified by faith which resulted in obedience. Live and you shall do this. The second never had saving faith. Neither one fits the Catholic paradigm, do this and you shall life.

    1. Do this and you shall live.
    2. Live and you shall do this.
    Kevin, which of the two does the will of the Father and lives?

    The answer? They both live and they both did the will of the Father! This was your catch phrase and your logic.
    Faith and works.
    Works and Faith.
    They both end up saved.
    In light of Mat 21:28, If you will notice, both knew the Father. Both knew him as Father. (Even devils believe and tremble.) Only one of them did what he asked.
    “Which of the two did the will of his father?” They *said, “The first.” Jesus *said to them, “Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God before you.
    You see, one is justified by works and not by faith alone.

    Jhn 14:12“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father.
    You see, Kevin, one is justified by works and not by faith alone.

    Mat 7:21“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.”

    You can’t please God with lip service, he demands action.
    See, Kevin? One is justified by works and not by faith alone.

    Reply

36. Bob said ” see Kevin? One is justified by works and not by faith alone” thanks Im sure Tim will be happy you answered his question.

    Reply

    1. He is most welcome–anything I can do to help.

       Reply

37. Hi Tim, I noticed in a post to Kenneth that you said you do not ascribe to natural law theology. IF I understand what you mean I have the same position. Does this mean that although all men may have a knowledge of God through creation and a sense of right and wrong, they are ignorant to the purpose of law being ignorant in unbelief. IF you have a minute can you give me a short synopsis. Thanks, hope all is well. K

    Reply

    1. Hi, Kevin,

       I do not subscribe to natural law theology that derives from Romans 2:14-15 (see for example, Ligonier ministries, which defines it based on that passage). That theory is based on the idea that God has written His law on the hearts of all mankind. Yet the Scriptures reserve that privilege to the elect alone—His covenant people. See for example, Jeremiah 31:33, “But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.” God does not write His law promiscuously upon the hearts of all mankind, but only upon the hearts of his people.

       I agree that all men know the difference between right and wrong, but Romans says that knowledge derives from an external testimony (Creation) not from an internal testimony (the Law written on the heart). Romans 1:20-32,

       “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: … Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

       Since most Christian natural law theory derives from a Romans 2:14-15, and presumes that God does for all mankind that which the Scriptures reserve for His people, I do not subscribe to it.

       Thanks,

       Tim

       Reply

       1. I just re read this Tim. It’s so important and consistent with the fact that salvation is a supernatural work of God, and ” not that of ourselves” When Paul says he was ignorant in unbelief this has to include the law. Sinners dead in their sins, unable to come to the truth cannot have the law of God written on their heart in any way. This makes the RC notion of part God part you diminish the utter supernatural work of the Spirit of God in salvation. God writes his law, God takes out the heart of stone, God washes us of our sins and remembers them no more, etc. before one act of obedience. Natural law theology that man can understand in some way internally the precepts of God is man made.

          Reply

38. Thanks Tim, thats exactly the way I view it. I don’t know if Paul’s statement in Corinthians where he says men are ignorant in unbelief applies, but certainly men who are corrupted throughout by sin have have no law written on their heart. K

    Reply

    1. Hi Kevin & Tim,
       I think Dr Robbins addressed this also on Romans 1…
       http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=168

       “Paul’s procedure in Romans, later followed by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologiae, was to raise a series of questions, and then answer them, both incorrectly and correctly. Paul, however, derived all his answers from revelation. His opening chapters have been much misunderstood by Thomas the Aristotelian, and by his many followers, both Romanist and Protestant. But Paul does not add any source of truth to Scripture. A careful reading of Romans 1:18-21 indicates that it has nothing to do with the so-called Thomistic proofs for the existence of God. Let us examine it line by line.

       ”For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven. . . .” Taking off one’s Aristotelian glasses, one might be surprised to note that Paul says the wrath, not the existence, of God is revealed from Heaven. Apparently our evidentialist friends have misread the verse. (Likewise, the Psalmist says the heavens declare the glory, not the existence, of God. Funny how the empiricism of Aristotle can make people hallucinate.) I have yet to come across an evidentialist argument proving the wrath of God on empirical grounds. This is a curious inconsistency. Evidentialists like to argue from experience and observation to the goodness, benevolence, or intelligence of some sort of god, but they are strangely silent about the rest of experience, which seems to imply, on their assumptions, the irrationality or wickedness of a god. If they are going to appeal to experience as proof of God, they must appeal to all experience, including the experience of Nazism, Communism, and Romanism”.

       Reply