Justification: Catholic vs Protestant

Justification: Catholic vs Protestant - Robert Sungenis

[hornatham]

Simply love listening to the wonderful video piece.Joy.

[Mr.Anglo]

This is confusing because literally any other Catholic I’ve heard explain this including Tim Staples and other notables are fine with saying He paid out debt. The only difference is they disagree that Christ was made guilty and stood in our place. Also appeasement is a type of payment.

[paulanchor]

Doesn't the Sungenis theory of justification require that repentance itself be a good work which merits justification? Otherwise a good work is missing for that slot which would otherwise have laid up treasure instead of now resulting in condemnation?

[sotem]

This was a very interesting video, I never looked at it from this way.
Nonetheless, I do find in scripture that we are ransomed, 1 Peter 1:18 Knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.

There are more verses to be found of course, how would we approach these passages in a Catholic way?
There are a lot of answers speaking about us being ransomed and such.

For Protestants: I'm interested in the Catholic answer, so I'm not really looking for Protestant interpretations.
God bless!

[paulanchor]

One of the fundamental differences between Sungenis and Calvinists or other protestants would be the nature of the righteousness which is the foundation of our justification before God. If we side with Sungenis the Christian possesses a partial incremental righteousness throughout his life. It is constantly being added to through incremental additions through the sacramental rituals of the priesthood. How can it stand up before the holiness of God? This is a mystery to me as well as being unbiblical. This is in complete and total contrast to the protestant or calvinistic position according to which we possess by faith alone at the moment of first believing the complete and perfect imputed righteousness of Christ himself. Which righteousness will save us? Sungenis is wrong. His concept of righteousness will not save anyone from the fires of hell.

[paulanchor]

James and Paul indicate justification on two levels. Otherwise they are contradicting each other. If I understand Sungenis thinking correctly I think he is trying to argue that works can be offered through some kind of gracious sacrificial ritual thereby making them meritorious before God. Otherwise they are not. If this is his theory I think it is unbiblical and wrong.

[paulanchor]

Of course Sungenis hates the finished atonement that Calvinists believe in. It leaves no room for purgatory and all the sacraments administered by the priesthood which are so important to keep the flock in fear and subservience.

[paulanchor]

I am a Calvinist myself. I will just comment as to how I see his views compared to mine. Obviously he rejects the penal substitute view, to which I hold, as being unjust. I don't agree because the context is not the human justice system. It would be unjust if it was enacted amongst a group of humans but you cannot project this context on to the trinity. If the persons of the trinity agree among themselves that one of them should adopt human form and allow himself to be punished for the sins of the world then that cannot be considered as unjust because no human being, taken from among the descendants of Adam, has been wrongly punished for someone else's crime. God voluntarily and freely decides to punish himself for the sins of the elect. The next point I would like to make is that he doesn't say why the crucified Christ pacifies or appeases the wrath of God under his method of viewing it. He just assumes it does without giving any reason. If I borrowed his illustrative method I could construct the following illustration to model his view of the cross. It would be like a man who has been insulted and offended by his neighbour. To appease himself he goes and beats up his son and this appeases him. Every time someone offends him he goes and beats up his son and this takes away all bad feelings towards those who have insulted him. This is obviously a crude analogy but it seems to me to be in essence what Sungenis is saying, or has to say, if he rejects the Calvinist view. He doesn't like the Calvinist view because it is legal or forensic. But the cross involves a kind of legal transaction if God transfers the sins of the elect to Jesus and he bears the punishment of them on their behalf.

[paulanchor]

Doesn't Jesus prove that good works have intrinsic worth and thus are meritorious before God without the need of any external ritual to be added ? Mark 10:21:
Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

[paulanchor]

Romans 4 v 4-5: But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, HIS FAITH IS COUNTED FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS, ( like Abraham ), Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works.

Dear Catholics you can't have it both ways. Either your faith is counted as righteousness or your works are counted as righteousness. It can't be both. You can't offer both to God. You can't have your cake and eat it.

6-7: Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works. Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

I believe the bible teaches in this text that David was already justified before he repented and that was why he was forgiven by God for his sins with Bathsheba and her husband. He repented because he was a justified believer and the the Holy Spirit moved him to repent. He was not justified because he repented.

[paullaymon]

Great discussion on the Church of Rome’s view of Justification. I would disagree on your view of the Armenian/Wesleyan view. I recommend reading Charles G. Finney. Great insight Brother!