Excellent presentation. Keep preaching the Gospel. Maybe you'd also want to explore the "proof texts" which are used to support temporal punishment and mortal sin.
Re temporal punishment: When the car window is broken and the dude gets baptised. His temporal sin with God is remitted. He has an obligation to fix the window the next day not as a temporal punishment... But as a good work the Father asks His adopted son to do... From a divine perspective: If he doesnt fix the window it is a new sin... Not the consequence of the old sin. as the Psalter says "against you (God) alone, and only you have i Sinned" The obligation to fix the mans window is not a pennance it can be seen as a new obligation... And if he dies a minute after his baptism he wont be punished by GOD for it
Claim - Anglicans recognise temporal punishment as medicinal and not for divine retributive justice. Response - Original sin caused suffering and death still applicable today, inferring an ongoing exile even with reconciliation through Christ and the Spirit. The Christian's union with god, therefore, does not remit temporal punishment for sin when temporal punishment still remains for original sin. The only remissions for temporal punishment occur through baptism, the Eucharist, penance and indulgences. There are no NT verses stating the temporal punishment for sin is removed for those united to Christ. Citing Abraham's justification applied to the Christian to establish the removal of temporal punishment for sin ignores Arbaham's many trials before and after justification given to remit sin and ignores the distinction of eternal and temporal punishment for sin. Abraham was not justified in a courtroom scene but within Melchizedek's covenant under the judgement of Melchizedek's Lord, who was Jesus himself judging from the heavenly Jerusalem. To affirm the exile ending does not affirm the remission of temporal punishment for sin. Israel's exile return included Israel's ongoing sufferings and the loss of the glory cloud and the ark of the covenant, with the kingdom forever weakened by the former ten northern tribes' apostasy, never revoked. The exile is always present when the Church in Acts enters the Way of the new exodus, indicating the Church is both in the Promised Land and the wilderness together. To affirm no temporal punishment for sin ignores Isaiah's new Exodus wilderness motif present in Rom 5-8, alluding to Israel's wilderness death and multiple sins before reaching the promised land. Christians are in the new Eden, and wilderness together, subject to the forgiveness of sin and divine union with sin and the temporal punishment for sin. Having the Spirit does not require the removal of the temporal punishment for sin by removing the exile simply because Israel had the wilderness and Promised Land Spirit and was punished with the Spirit's presence. There are no NT texts that state the Spirit's presence necessitates temporal punishment for sin is excluded. Revelation includes punishments for the various churches committing various sins in the Messianic age. Also, to affirm the medicinal aspect of temporal punishment for sin infers retributive justice is included, transforming the sinner whilst punishing the sinner. To affirm no condemnation for the sanctified only means no eternal punishment for sin when the church is always in the wilderness journey towards the heavenly promised land. There courtroom is not present in Romans, however Romans includes much evidence for the covenant, new creation and new Exodus. The charges made is before the divine Davidic king who mediates the new covenant and not a fictional intercessor in a fictional court room. The Anglican apologetic attempting to remove temporal punishment for sin has failed.
"Citing Abraham's justification ignores the trials he went through to remit debt" - The problem is that in Romans 4, the apostle quite explicitly says that sins were remitted wholly apart from works. To affirm that somehow, Romans 4 applies only because of works before and after justification ignores the whole point--namely, that God reckoned righteousness to Abraham apart from works at all. Furthermore, there is no such thing as "Melchizedek's covenant"; Paul quotes Romans 4 in application to the believer. Re: Israel's exile. The whole point of the new covenant is that Israel's exile has ended, and hence to try to draw an analogue misses the point that the exile that Israel was under has ended in the gift of the Spirit. The church is in the wilderness--the overlap of the ages--but that doesn't mean that the *church herself* is under divine exile. She lives in the midst of a world in exile. No, affirming the medicinal aspect of punishment does not require an affirmation of the retributive function, as one would still assign medicinal penances if necessary to the newly baptized (e.g., if the newly baptized was a former porn addict, a priest would do well to tell the newly baptized to cut off sources of temptation). Instead, your attempt to affirm retributive punishment against the believer would have it that there *is* condemnation for those in Christ, and that there *are* charges that can be brought against the believer for which the believer can be sentenced--running roughshod over Romans 8.
@@anglicanaesthetics Claim - "Citing Abraham's justification ignores the trials he went through to remit debt" - The problem is that in Romans 4, the apostle quite explicitly says that sins were remitted wholly apart from works. To affirm that somehow, Romans 4 applies only because of works before and after justification ignores the whole point--namely, that God reckoned righteousness to Abraham apart from works at all. Furthermore, there is no such thing as "Melchizedek's covenant"; Paul quotes Romans 4 in application to the believer. Response - Abraham entered into covenant union with God through Melchizedek's priestly mediation before speaking to God and obtaining justification by faith. St Paul's reference to works in Romans 4 only refers to the later Abrahamic covenant of circumcision and the Mosaic covenant summarised by circumcision. Works does not refer to anything presuming good deeds or works of merit. Abraham sinned by not protecting Sarah from Pharaoh and was punished by Lot's captivity. Abraham later sinned again with Hagar and was punished by the delayed son trial. Abraham was also rewarded with covenants for obedience, particularly at Mt Moriah with the covenant oath to bless the nations through Abraham's seed. Abraham's life entails demerit and merit always presumptive of temporal punishment for sin. Abraham's justifying faith was not a one-time event without reference to any works, but an ongoing life of faith without works of the law granted through circumcision, which presumes upon Abraham's faith in all the covenants. Claim - Re: Israel's exile. The whole point of the new covenant is that Israel's exile has ended, and hence to try to draw an analogue misses the point that the exile that Israel was under has ended in the gift of the Spirit. The church is in the wilderness--the overlap of the ages--but that doesn't mean that the church herself is under divine exile. She lives in the midst of a world in exile. Response - The exile end does not necessitate the Church does not suffer temporal punishment for sin. The church and the world continue under Adams's curse, awaiting the final restoration at the final Parousia. the entire universe groans like a woman in childbirth awaiting its final restoration (Rom 8:22-23). Also St Pauls theology includes an already, but not yet motif having statements of already obtaining release from exile whilst remaining in exile. This is why NT Wright and other scholars have noted Romans 5-8 includes a new Exodus wilderness substructure presuming the Church has entered the wilderness Way after Pentecost. Claim - No, affirming the medicinal aspect of punishment does not require an affirmation of the retributive function, as one would still assign medicinal penances if necessary to the newly baptized (e.g., if the newly baptized was a former porn addict, a priest would do well to tell the newly baptized to cut off sources of temptation). Response - All suffering includes a retributive function in a fallen world following Adam's fall which still applies after the redemption. Humanity was and continues to be punished from Adam's sin with suffering and death. The principle of participation is throughout St. Paul's theology, melding retributive punishment with medicinal cures. St Paul, for example, placed a man under Satan's power, punishing him for sin and saving him on the last day (1 Cor 5:5). Claim - Instead, your attempt to affirm retributive punishment against the believer would have it that there is condemnation for those in Christ, and that there are charges that can be brought against the believer for which the believer can be sentenced--running roughshod over Romans 8. Response - Paradoxically affirming retributive punishment against the believer affirms no condemnation. Temporal punishment does not condemn but restores and improves a divine union through retributive justice, which is spiritually medicinal. Romans 8 nowhere denies temporal punishment for sin; otherwise, St Paul would have placed the sinful man under Satan's power (1 Cor 5:5) to restore the sinner to justification and sanctification whilst satisfying retributive justice. If there is no retributive punishment for the faithful, as you contend, the Father would not discipline his children through love, indicating the Father has abandoned those without condemnation (Rom 8). Romans 8 and everything in the NT presumes the punishments of suffering and death continue in humanity after the redemption proving there is temporal punishment for sin until the final restoration of all things in Christ. The ongoing temporal punishment for original sin infers actual sin is also punished by temporal sufferings consistent with the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, where the Lord punishes the redeemed sinners with temporal fire (1 Cor 3:10-15), which is both retributive and medicinal. To distinguish between retributive and medicinal punishment, attempting to remove purgatory makes an artificial separation between two divine motives for temporal punishment founding an arbitrary removal of retributive justice contrary to the self-evident suffering and death encountered in the fallen world after original sin. The human condition universally experiences the consequences of the divine curse after original sin witnessing the ongoing divine intent to punish sin with temporal suffering.
St Paul noting many have become sick and died after receiving the Eucharist without due regard for the presence of mortal sin when receiving the sacrament (1 Cor. 11:28-32). The temporal punishment for sin in sickness and death refutes your claim of no retributive temporal punishment in the NT. The same also refutes your claim of no condemnation for those in Christ (Rom 8) inferring no temporal punishment for sin when St Paul was referring to the faithful who were in Christ and then separated from Christ through sin. Evidently there is no condemnation for those in Christ. And later, those in Christ were condemned after mortal sin with both temporal and eternal punishment according to St Paul's Eucharistic theology. It would be a good thing to reconsider your current theology of temporal punishment for sin.
A mortal sin is just an act that has a telos of damnation. We aren't judged by some ratio of good to bad? THAT is works based salvation. So the theory of the telos of faith is nice; (and close to St Pope Benedict's XVI's writing of "fides formata") But where it falls short is that it only accounts for one telos in a person's life... It does not acknowledge that we all have the possibility of also living a life with the telos of sin. There is also the flesh. We ALL have the telos of the life of flesh and the telos of the life of spirit at war in us. ALL of us. If an act is simply inclining towards the flesh; then it would be venial. But a mortal sin is an act that God infallibly knows and judges to be a movement from faith to evil. With perfect contrition we can return to faith. But the theory you present gives a false dichotomy: where a life of "faith" can be the overall vibe of a person's life -With points of sin opposed to the vibe but distinct from the vibe. Okay but the vibe of faith is made up of POINTS of repentance, faith, hope and love. And a point of sin can also be the beginning of a vibe of death. If it is... It's a mortal sin. If not... It's venial. 🤷♂️ What this theory ends up denying is that even the unrepentant reprobates... Struggle against sin sometimes. Even the non Christian makes acts of love and faith and hope... Even Hitler did nice things sometimes... So to summarise; it is arbitrary to say -saving faith is a vibe of life with points of sin While denying ***-damning sin can be a vibe with points of faith*** God knows which is which. If the vineyard workers leave then they don't get paid. If they work for one hour or ten.... But are there at the end... They receive their reward.... If the virgins have oil when the bridegroom returns... They will be let in.... If the wedding guest has a clean garment when the bridegroom sees him... He wine dine... If the branch is budding fruit... It wont be cut off. It doesnt mayter if for 70 years you worked the vineyard, had oil, had clean garments, bore fruit..... What matters is the *POINT* you are in when the JUDGE comes back. Not a ratio.
Let's examine your faith-alone justification, which can be summarized in three points below: 1. Justification is once for all and is by faith alone (sola fide) 2. Through faith-alone Justification you are counted/declared as righteous but remain unrighteous/sinner. 3. Through faith alone Justification an exchange took place between you and Christ, known as double imputation. You get Christ' righteousness as if that righteousness were yours while you remain unrighteous/sinner and Christ got all your sins (past, present and future) as if those sins were His while He remains sinless. Let me know if I make wrong statement about sola fide (and of course, what is the correct one) My objection on point 1: The phrase "justified by faith" appears four times in New Testament (Rom. 3:28, 5:1, Gal. 2:16, 3:24). New Testament was written in Greek and the one in Rom. 3:28 is in Greek passive present tense while the rest are in Greek passive aorist tense . Both tenses do not indicate once for all justification. If Scripture teaches faith-alone justification, then the Holy Spirit would inspire Paul to write the phrase "justified by faith" in Greek passive perfect tense. Unlike that of English Greek perfect tense indicates the action described by the verb (to be justified) was completed in the past with continuing effect to the present . My objection on point 2: Scripture denies you can be righteous and sinner at the same time in Eze. 33:12-13: “the righteous shall not be able to live by his righteousness when he sins. Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and does injustice, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered, but in his injustice that he has done he shall die.” My objection on point 3: Scripture denies double imputation in what Eze. 18:20 says: “The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” One verse always cited to support double imputation is 2 Cor. 5:21: “For our sake he [God] made him [Christ] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” However, the verse says we become the righteousness of God, while according to imputation we do not become righteous - we are counted as righteous based on righteousness of Christ, but we remain unrighteous. The verse also says Christ who knew no sin to be sin. In contrast imputation does not make Christ sin as the verse says. To explain what 2 Cor. 5:21 means, in Hebrew the same one word (חַטָּאָת, khat-taw-aw’, Strong H2403) is used for both sin (Gen. 18:20, Exo. 34:9 etc.) and sin offering (Lev. 4:8, 16:3, 5 etc.). According to Leviticus 16 once a year the High Priest chose one of two goats as sin offering (or sin, חַטָּאָת) to atone the sins of all Israelites (Lev. 16:8-9). That goat was sacrificed, and its blood sprinkled on and before the mercy-seat (Exo. 25:16-20, Lev. 16:15) and on the horns of the altar (Lev. 16:18). The sins of all Israelites were imputed on the second goat, that was not sacrificed but released in the wilderness as scapegoat (Lev. 16:8, 21-22). In the New Covenant Christ is the High Priest (Heb. 4:14, 9:11) and He offered Himself as sin offering or sin (Heb. 9:12). While He died to atone our sins on the cross, our sins are not imputed on Him, just like the sins of all Israelites are not imputed on the first goat in Lev. 16:8-9. Therefore 2 Cor. 5:21 talks about the atonement of sinless Christ made on the cross where He became sin (sin offering). What he did enable us to become the righteousness of God, partakers of divine nature (2 Pe. 1:4). If the goat in the Old Testament was able to atone the sins of all Israelites without their sins imputed on it, certainly Christ can atone the sins of all men without their sins imputed on Him. I look forward to receiving your response.
According to Scripture salvation is affected by future sins AFTER faith. You cited Hebrews but ignore what Heb. 10:26-27 says: “For if we go on sinning deliberately AFTER RECEIVING THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.” “We” in Heb. 10:26 is first person plural that even includes the person who wrote Hebrews. If future sins will not affect salvation, then James 1:15 would not warn us that fully grown sin brings forth death. According to 1 Jo. 5:16-17 there are deadly (or mortal) and non-deadly (or venial) sins. If all your sins as believers (united in Christ) were already paid by Christ on the cross, per your belief, then those verses contradict your belief.
In Gen. 15:6 what was counted (Hebrew חָשַׁב, khaw-shav’, Strong H2803) to Abraham for righteousness is faith. But what was counted (the same חָשַׁב) for righteousness to Phinehas in Psalms 106:31 was not faith but what he did as described in verse 30 (in more detail in Num. 25:7-8). Faith is NOT the only thing counted for righteousness!
Based on your statement you, as a believer (united in Christ in your terminology) , just need to repent whenever you sin and there is no need of temporal punishment. Is your belief scriptural? Eze. 33:14-16 says (ESV, emphasis in capital is mine): Again, though I [God] say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ yet IF HE TURNS FROM HIS SIN AND DOES WHAT IS JUST AND RIGHT, if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has taken by robbery, and walks in the statutes of life, not doing injustice, he shall surely live; he shall not die. NONE OF THE SINS THAT HE HAS COMMITTED SHALL BE REMEMBERED AGAINST HIM. HE HAS DONE WHAT IS JUST AND RIGHT; HE SHALL SURELY LIVE. The verses say when when a wicked person turns from sin (repent) AND does what is just and right, he would be back to life. That is what God demands and you should listen and obey. Doing what is just and right after turning from sin is the temporal punishment. You have problem with temporal punishment, purgatory, penance and indulgences comes from the double imputation teaching of the Reformers. Through faith alone you get Christ' righteousness imputed on you as if that righteousness were yours but you remain sinner, while Christ got ALL YOUR SINS (past, present, and future) imputed on Him as if those sins were His - and He paid the penalty of those sins on the cross. Under double imputation concept of the Reformers what Eze. 33:14-16 says as well as penance, purgatory, indulgences will add what Christ already accomplished on the cross. Is double imputation scriptural? Eze. 18:20 flatly denies double imputation: “The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”
Your denials at the very start are misleading. You are getting out of the way the fact that Protestants and their Reformer heroes have separated justification from sanctification, affirming salvation without works and inner transformation. There have of course been inconsistencies in their pronouncements, Luther being self contradictory, but the emphatic assertion of many Protestants, following Luther, has been that works and inner change have no part in justification. Listen to for example on R C Sproul's teaching of Luther's extra nos, alien righteousness, snow covering the dunghill notions. For a careful study of the differences between Roman Catholicism and Proteestantism on the matter, you should read Johann Adam Moehler's Symbolik, in which he gives close attention to the works of Luther, Calvin and Zwingli. You should also note that Anglicanism is not Lutheranism, Calvinism or Zwinglianism, although there are Anglicans who follow them. There have long been Anglican theologians who disagree with Protestant views on justification. Bishop Alexander Penrose Forbes' work on The Thirty Nine Articles is worth reading.
@anselman3156 That's manifestly untrue, both in Luther's "Two Kinds of Righteousness" and Calvin in the Institutes, who explicitly locates justification in Union with Christ: "First, we must understand that as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separate from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us. Therefore to share with us what he has received from the Father he had to become ours and to dwell within us. For this reason, he is called “our head” [Eph 4:15], and ‘the first-born among many brethren” [Rom 8:29]. We also, in turn, are said to be ‘engrafted into him” [Rom 11:17] and to ‘put on Christ [Gal 3:27]; for as I have said, all that he possesses is nothing to us until we grow into one body with him. It is true that we obtain this by faith. Yes since we see that not all indiscriminately embrace that communion with Christ which is offered through the gospel, reason itself teaches us to climb higher and to examine into the secret energy of the Spirit, by which we come to enjoy Christ and all his benefits.” Luther never wrote that alien righteousness is akin to a snow covering a dunghill. I highly recommend to you Todd Billing's "Calvin, Participation, and the Gift", Richard Hooker's Learned discourse on Justification, and Luther's "Two Kinds of Righteousness" as well as Luther's "Treatise on Good Works." The Regensberg Colloquy on Justification in Particular is also worth reading.
@anselman3156 For more on Calvin: :Justification and sanctification, gifts of grace, go together as if tied by an inseparable bond, so that if anyone tries to separate them, he is, in a sense, tearing Christ to pieces. Sanctification doesn’t just flow from justification, so that one produces the other. Both come from the same Source. Christ justifies no one whom He does not also sanctify. By virtue of our union with Christ, He bestows both gifts, the one never without the other." Calvin’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians 1:30, Volume XX, Baker, 1993, p. 93. Why, then, are we justified by faith? Because by faith we grasp Christ’s righteousness, by which alone we are reconciled to God. Yet you could not grasp this without at the same time grasping sanctification also. For he ‘is given unto us for righteousness, wisdom, sanctification, and redemption’ (1 Cor 1:30). Therefore Christ justifies no one whom he does not at the same time sanctify. These benefits are joined together by an everlasting and indissoluble bond, so that those whom he illumines by his wisdom, he redeems; those whom he redeems, he justifies; those whom he justifies, he sanctifies. But, since the question concerns only righteousness and sanctification, let us dwell upon these. Although we may distinguish them, Christ contains both of them inseparably in himself. Do you wish, then, to attain righteousness in Christ? You must first possess Christ; but you cannot possess him without being made partaker of his sanctification, because he cannot be divided into pieces (1 Cor. 1:13). Since, therefore, it is solely by expending himself that the Lord gives us these benefits to enjoy, he bestows both of them at the same time, the one never without the other. Thus it is clear how true it is that we are justified not without works yet not through works, since in our sharing in Christ, which justifies us, sanctification is just as much included as righteousness." (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion. Found in The Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), Volume XIX, Book III, Ch. XVI.1
@@anglicanaesthetics As I said, Luther and Lutherans were inconsistent. As Moehler shows in his work Symbolism, Luther said things which Lutherans have contradicted. Luther was emphatic on the forensic nature of justification, on the righteousness extra nos, and denied that the faith which justifies is the faith which worketh by charity. He was at pains to deny the necessity for charity in justifying faith. When the assembly of Catholics and Lutherans met at Ratisbon in 1541, and agreed on a statement "It is a settled and sound doctrine, that sinful man is justified by living and active faith; for by it are we rendered agreeable and well pleasing unto God for Christ's sake", Luther condemned it as "a wretched, botched note". Although Lutherans did not consistently follow Luther, the fact is that Protestants have emphasised Luther's doctrine as being of forensic justification, one of legal standing as against one of interior change. It is modern revisionists such as the Finnish Mannermaa who have been emphasising another side of Luther's thinking on the matter of union with Christ by faith as necessarily involving an interior change and not a mere external extra nos alien righteousness. Elsewhere Moehler quotes Luther's objection to the necessity of charity in justifying faith. I have also read non Lutheran or Calvinists speaking of justified persons being still at enmity with God until a subsequent experience of sanctification. I am sure you must be aware of the predominant Protestant emphasis on mere forensic justification, imputed righteousness as opposed to imparted righteousness, since the 16th century and until today, There is contradiction and confusion among Protestants on the matters of justification, sanctification and regeneration. This is well brought out in vatican catholic's "Protestantism's Justifiication lie" video (which includes the Sproul speech on "alien righteousness".
@@anselman3156 It's simply incorrect that the emphasis of the Finnish school was revision in terms of connecting justification to union with Christ. The Finnish school argued that justification for Luther *meant* (btw, the "Finnish Mannermaa" is not a thing. Mannerma was the founder of the Finnish school). But that Luther connected it to union with Christ is clear from his sermon "Two kinds of righteousness." Luther writes, "Therefore this alien righteousness, instilled in us without our works by grace alone-while the Father, to be sure, inwardly draws us to Christ-is set opposite original sin, likewise alien, which we acquire without our works by birth alone. Christ daily drives out the old Adam more The second kind of righteousness is our proper righteousness, not because we alone work it, but because we work with that first and alien righteousness. This is that manner of life spent profitably in good works, in the first place, in slaying the flesh and crucifying the desires with respect to the self, of which we read in Gal. 5[:24]: “And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.” In the second place, this righteousness consists in love to one’s neighbor, and in the third place, in meekness and fear toward God. The Apostle is full of references to these, as is all the rest of Scripture. He briefly summarizes everything, however, in Titus 2[:12]: “In this world let us live soberly (pertaining to crucifying one’s own flesh), justly (referring to one’s neighbor), and devoutly (relating to God).”" And I've already quoted Calvin's direct comments on the matter. So just asserting that I'm wrong by quoting a 19th century Catholic won't do it.
@@anglicanaesthetics Where does the snow-covered dunghills statement come from then, if not from Luther? And why do Sproul and others use it, it seems? Genuinely curious
You’re one of my favorite protestants on YT. Keep up the good work, Sean! 🤝
Always a fan of thug life luther thumbnails
Should've given him a cigar. They're actually cool and fits an intellectual aesthetic.
@@catfinity8799i kinda like the look of the blunt/rolled up cigarette with this though.
You're the GOAT 🐐 sean
Excellent presentation. Keep preaching the Gospel. Maybe you'd also want to explore the "proof texts" which are used to support temporal punishment and mortal sin.
Hey there. I have several questions. Would it be possible to email you somewhere?
@@VirtueInEternity sure! anglicanaesthetics@gmail.com
Great job
Re temporal punishment:
When the car window is broken and the dude gets baptised. His temporal sin with God is remitted.
He has an obligation to fix the window the next day not as a temporal punishment... But as a good work the Father asks His adopted son to do...
From a divine perspective: If he doesnt fix the window it is a new sin... Not the consequence of the old sin.
as the Psalter says
"against you (God) alone, and only you have i Sinned"
The obligation to fix the mans window is not a pennance it can be seen as a new obligation... And if he dies a minute after his baptism he wont be punished by GOD for it
Claim - Anglicans recognise temporal punishment as medicinal and not for divine retributive justice.
Response - Original sin caused suffering and death still applicable today, inferring an ongoing exile even with reconciliation through Christ and the Spirit. The Christian's union with god, therefore, does not remit temporal punishment for sin when temporal punishment still remains for original sin. The only remissions for temporal punishment occur through baptism, the Eucharist, penance and indulgences. There are no NT verses stating the temporal punishment for sin is removed for those united to Christ.
Citing Abraham's justification applied to the Christian to establish the removal of temporal punishment for sin ignores Arbaham's many trials before and after justification given to remit sin and ignores the distinction of eternal and temporal punishment for sin. Abraham was not justified in a courtroom scene but within Melchizedek's covenant under the judgement of Melchizedek's Lord, who was Jesus himself judging from the heavenly Jerusalem.
To affirm the exile ending does not affirm the remission of temporal punishment for sin. Israel's exile return included Israel's ongoing sufferings and the loss of the glory cloud and the ark of the covenant, with the kingdom forever weakened by the former ten northern tribes' apostasy, never revoked. The exile is always present when the Church in Acts enters the Way of the new exodus, indicating the Church is both in the Promised Land and the wilderness together.
To affirm no temporal punishment for sin ignores Isaiah's new Exodus wilderness motif present in Rom 5-8, alluding to Israel's wilderness death and multiple sins before reaching the promised land. Christians are in the new Eden, and wilderness together, subject to the forgiveness of sin and divine union with sin and the temporal punishment for sin. Having the Spirit does not require the removal of the temporal punishment for sin by removing the exile simply because Israel had the wilderness and Promised Land Spirit and was punished with the Spirit's presence.
There are no NT texts that state the Spirit's presence necessitates temporal punishment for sin is excluded. Revelation includes punishments for the various churches committing various sins in the Messianic age.
Also, to affirm the medicinal aspect of temporal punishment for sin infers retributive justice is included, transforming the sinner whilst punishing the sinner.
To affirm no condemnation for the sanctified only means no eternal punishment for sin when the church is always in the wilderness journey towards the heavenly promised land. There courtroom is not present in Romans, however Romans includes much evidence for the covenant, new creation and new Exodus. The charges made is before the divine Davidic king who mediates the new covenant and not a fictional intercessor in a fictional court room.
The Anglican apologetic attempting to remove temporal punishment for sin has failed.
"Citing Abraham's justification ignores the trials he went through to remit debt" - The problem is that in Romans 4, the apostle quite explicitly says that sins were remitted wholly apart from works. To affirm that somehow, Romans 4 applies only because of works before and after justification ignores the whole point--namely, that God reckoned righteousness to Abraham apart from works at all. Furthermore, there is no such thing as "Melchizedek's covenant"; Paul quotes Romans 4 in application to the believer.
Re: Israel's exile. The whole point of the new covenant is that Israel's exile has ended, and hence to try to draw an analogue misses the point that the exile that Israel was under has ended in the gift of the Spirit. The church is in the wilderness--the overlap of the ages--but that doesn't mean that the *church herself* is under divine exile. She lives in the midst of a world in exile.
No, affirming the medicinal aspect of punishment does not require an affirmation of the retributive function, as one would still assign medicinal penances if necessary to the newly baptized (e.g., if the newly baptized was a former porn addict, a priest would do well to tell the newly baptized to cut off sources of temptation).
Instead, your attempt to affirm retributive punishment against the believer would have it that there *is* condemnation for those in Christ, and that there *are* charges that can be brought against the believer for which the believer can be sentenced--running roughshod over Romans 8.
@@anglicanaesthetics Claim - "Citing Abraham's justification ignores the trials he went through to remit debt" - The problem is that in Romans 4, the apostle quite explicitly says that sins were remitted wholly apart from works. To affirm that somehow, Romans 4 applies only because of works before and after justification ignores the whole point--namely, that God reckoned righteousness to Abraham apart from works at all. Furthermore, there is no such thing as "Melchizedek's covenant"; Paul quotes Romans 4 in application to the believer.
Response - Abraham entered into covenant union with God through Melchizedek's priestly mediation before speaking to God and obtaining justification by faith. St Paul's reference to works in Romans 4 only refers to the later Abrahamic covenant of circumcision and the Mosaic covenant summarised by circumcision. Works does not refer to anything presuming good deeds or works of merit.
Abraham sinned by not protecting Sarah from Pharaoh and was punished by Lot's captivity. Abraham later sinned again with Hagar and was punished by the delayed son trial. Abraham was also rewarded with covenants for obedience, particularly at Mt Moriah with the covenant oath to bless the nations through Abraham's seed. Abraham's life entails demerit and merit always presumptive of temporal punishment for sin. Abraham's justifying faith was not a one-time event without reference to any works, but an ongoing life of faith without works of the law granted through circumcision, which presumes upon Abraham's faith in all the covenants.
Claim - Re: Israel's exile. The whole point of the new covenant is that Israel's exile has ended, and hence to try to draw an analogue misses the point that the exile that Israel was under has ended in the gift of the Spirit. The church is in the wilderness--the overlap of the ages--but that doesn't mean that the church herself is under divine exile. She lives in the midst of a world in exile.
Response - The exile end does not necessitate the Church does not suffer temporal punishment for sin. The church and the world continue under Adams's curse, awaiting the final restoration at the final Parousia. the entire universe groans like a woman in childbirth awaiting its final restoration (Rom 8:22-23). Also St Pauls theology includes an already, but not yet motif having statements of already obtaining release from exile whilst remaining in exile. This is why NT Wright and other scholars have noted Romans 5-8 includes a new Exodus wilderness substructure presuming the Church has entered the wilderness Way after Pentecost.
Claim - No, affirming the medicinal aspect of punishment does not require an affirmation of the retributive function, as one would still assign medicinal penances if necessary to the newly baptized (e.g., if the newly baptized was a former porn addict, a priest would do well to tell the newly baptized to cut off sources of temptation).
Response - All suffering includes a retributive function in a fallen world following Adam's fall which still applies after the redemption. Humanity was and continues to be punished from Adam's sin with suffering and death. The principle of participation is throughout St. Paul's theology, melding retributive punishment with medicinal cures. St Paul, for example, placed a man under Satan's power, punishing him for sin and saving him on the last day (1 Cor 5:5).
Claim - Instead, your attempt to affirm retributive punishment against the believer would have it that there is condemnation for those in Christ, and that there are charges that can be brought against the believer for which the believer can be sentenced--running roughshod over Romans 8.
Response - Paradoxically affirming retributive punishment against the believer affirms no condemnation. Temporal punishment does not condemn but restores and improves a divine union through retributive justice, which is spiritually medicinal. Romans 8 nowhere denies temporal punishment for sin; otherwise, St Paul would have placed the sinful man under Satan's power (1 Cor 5:5) to restore the sinner to justification and sanctification whilst satisfying retributive justice. If there is no retributive punishment for the faithful, as you contend, the Father would not discipline his children through love, indicating the Father has abandoned those without condemnation (Rom 8).
Romans 8 and everything in the NT presumes the punishments of suffering and death continue in humanity after the redemption proving there is temporal punishment for sin until the final restoration of all things in Christ. The ongoing temporal punishment for original sin infers actual sin is also punished by temporal sufferings consistent with the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, where the Lord punishes the redeemed sinners with temporal fire (1 Cor 3:10-15), which is both retributive and medicinal.
To distinguish between retributive and medicinal punishment, attempting to remove purgatory makes an artificial separation between two divine motives for temporal punishment founding an arbitrary removal of retributive justice contrary to the self-evident suffering and death encountered in the fallen world after original sin. The human condition universally experiences the consequences of the divine curse after original sin witnessing the ongoing divine intent to punish sin with temporal suffering.
St Paul noting many have become sick and died after receiving the Eucharist without due regard for the presence of mortal sin when receiving the sacrament (1 Cor. 11:28-32). The temporal punishment for sin in sickness and death refutes your claim of no retributive temporal punishment in the NT.
The same also refutes your claim of no condemnation for those in Christ (Rom 8) inferring no temporal punishment for sin when St Paul was referring to the faithful who were in Christ and then separated from Christ through sin. Evidently there is no condemnation for those in Christ. And later, those in Christ were condemned after mortal sin with both temporal and eternal punishment according to St Paul's Eucharistic theology.
It would be a good thing to reconsider your current theology of temporal punishment for sin.
A mortal sin is just an act that has a telos of damnation.
We aren't judged by some ratio of good to bad? THAT is works based salvation.
So the theory of the telos of faith is nice; (and close to St Pope Benedict's XVI's writing of "fides formata")
But where it falls short is that it only accounts for one telos in a person's life...
It does not acknowledge that we all have the possibility of also living a life with the telos of sin.
There is also the flesh.
We ALL have the telos of the life of flesh and the telos of the life of spirit at war in us. ALL of us.
If an act is simply inclining towards the flesh; then it would be venial.
But a mortal sin is an act that God infallibly knows and judges to be a movement from faith to evil.
With perfect contrition we can return to faith.
But the theory you present gives a false dichotomy:
where a life of "faith" can be the overall vibe of a person's life
-With points of sin opposed to the vibe but distinct from the vibe.
Okay but the vibe of faith is made up of POINTS of repentance, faith, hope and love.
And a point of sin can also be the beginning of a vibe of death.
If it is... It's a mortal sin.
If not... It's venial.
🤷♂️
What this theory ends up denying is that even the unrepentant reprobates... Struggle against sin sometimes.
Even the non Christian makes acts of love and faith and hope...
Even Hitler did nice things sometimes...
So to summarise; it is arbitrary to say
-saving faith is a vibe of life with points of sin
While denying
***-damning sin can be a vibe with points of faith***
God knows which is which. If the vineyard workers leave then they don't get paid.
If they work for one hour or ten.... But are there at the end... They receive their reward....
If the virgins have oil when the bridegroom returns... They will be let in....
If the wedding guest has a clean garment when the bridegroom sees him... He wine dine...
If the branch is budding fruit... It wont be cut off.
It doesnt mayter if for 70 years you worked the vineyard, had oil, had clean garments, bore fruit.....
What matters is the *POINT* you are in when the JUDGE comes back.
Not a ratio.
Let's examine your faith-alone justification, which can be summarized in three points below:
1. Justification is once for all and is by faith alone (sola fide)
2. Through faith-alone Justification you are counted/declared as righteous but remain unrighteous/sinner.
3. Through faith alone Justification an exchange took place between you and Christ, known as double imputation. You get Christ' righteousness as if that righteousness were yours while you remain unrighteous/sinner and Christ got all your sins (past, present and future) as if those sins were His while He remains sinless.
Let me know if I make wrong statement about sola fide (and of course, what is the correct one)
My objection on point 1:
The phrase "justified by faith" appears four times in New Testament (Rom. 3:28, 5:1, Gal. 2:16, 3:24). New Testament was written in Greek and the one in Rom. 3:28 is in Greek passive present tense while the rest are in Greek passive aorist tense . Both tenses do not indicate once for all justification. If Scripture teaches faith-alone justification, then the Holy Spirit would inspire Paul to write the phrase "justified by faith" in Greek passive perfect tense. Unlike that of English Greek perfect tense indicates the action described by the verb (to be justified) was completed in the past with continuing effect to the present .
My objection on point 2:
Scripture denies you can be righteous and sinner at the same time in Eze. 33:12-13: “the righteous shall not be able to live by his righteousness when he sins. Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and does injustice, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered, but in his injustice that he has done he shall die.”
My objection on point 3:
Scripture denies double imputation in what Eze. 18:20 says: “The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”
One verse always cited to support double imputation is 2 Cor. 5:21: “For our sake he [God] made him [Christ] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” However, the verse says we become the righteousness of God, while according to imputation we do not become righteous - we are counted as righteous based on righteousness of Christ, but we remain unrighteous. The verse also says Christ who knew no sin to be sin. In contrast imputation does not make Christ sin as the verse says.
To explain what 2 Cor. 5:21 means, in Hebrew the same one word (חַטָּאָת, khat-taw-aw’, Strong H2403) is used for both sin (Gen. 18:20, Exo. 34:9 etc.) and sin offering (Lev. 4:8, 16:3, 5 etc.). According to Leviticus 16 once a year the High Priest chose one of two goats as sin offering (or sin, חַטָּאָת) to atone the sins of all Israelites (Lev. 16:8-9). That goat was sacrificed, and its blood sprinkled on and before the mercy-seat (Exo. 25:16-20, Lev. 16:15) and on the horns of the altar (Lev. 16:18). The sins of all Israelites were imputed on the second goat, that was not sacrificed but released in the wilderness as scapegoat (Lev. 16:8, 21-22). In the New Covenant Christ is the High Priest (Heb. 4:14, 9:11) and He offered Himself as sin offering or sin (Heb. 9:12). While He died to atone our sins on the cross, our sins are not imputed on Him, just like the sins of all Israelites are not imputed on the first goat in Lev. 16:8-9. Therefore 2 Cor. 5:21 talks about the atonement of sinless Christ made on the cross where He became sin (sin offering). What he did enable us to become the righteousness of God, partakers of divine nature (2 Pe. 1:4). If the goat in the Old Testament was able to atone the sins of all Israelites without their sins imputed on it, certainly Christ can atone the sins of all men without their sins imputed on Him.
I look forward to receiving your response.
You did it joe, protestantism is dead
According to Scripture salvation is affected by future sins AFTER faith. You cited Hebrews but ignore what Heb. 10:26-27 says: “For if we go on sinning deliberately AFTER RECEIVING THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.” “We” in Heb. 10:26 is first person plural that even includes the person who wrote Hebrews. If future sins will not affect salvation, then James 1:15 would not warn us that fully grown sin brings forth death. According to 1 Jo. 5:16-17 there are deadly (or mortal) and non-deadly (or venial) sins. If all your sins as believers (united in Christ) were already paid by Christ on the cross, per your belief, then those verses contradict your belief.
In Gen. 15:6 what was counted (Hebrew חָשַׁב, khaw-shav’, Strong H2803) to Abraham for righteousness is faith. But what was counted (the same חָשַׁב) for righteousness to Phinehas in Psalms 106:31 was not faith but what he did as described in verse 30 (in more detail in Num. 25:7-8). Faith is NOT the only thing counted for righteousness!
Based on your statement you, as a believer (united in Christ in your terminology) , just need to repent whenever you sin and there is no need of temporal punishment. Is your belief scriptural? Eze. 33:14-16 says (ESV, emphasis in capital is mine):
Again, though I [God] say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ yet IF HE TURNS FROM HIS SIN AND DOES WHAT IS JUST AND RIGHT, if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has taken by robbery, and walks in the statutes of life, not doing injustice, he shall surely live; he shall not die. NONE OF THE SINS THAT HE HAS COMMITTED SHALL BE REMEMBERED AGAINST HIM. HE HAS DONE WHAT IS JUST AND RIGHT; HE SHALL SURELY LIVE.
The verses say when when a wicked person turns from sin (repent) AND does what is just and right, he would be back to life. That is what God demands and you should listen and obey. Doing what is just and right after turning from sin is the temporal punishment.
You have problem with temporal punishment, purgatory, penance and indulgences comes from the double imputation teaching of the Reformers. Through faith alone you get Christ' righteousness imputed on you as if that righteousness were yours but you remain sinner, while Christ got ALL YOUR SINS (past, present, and future) imputed on Him as if those sins were His - and He paid the penalty of those sins on the cross. Under double imputation concept of the Reformers what Eze. 33:14-16 says as well as penance, purgatory, indulgences will add what Christ already accomplished on the cross. Is double imputation scriptural? Eze. 18:20 flatly denies double imputation: “The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”
Your denials at the very start are misleading. You are getting out of the way the fact that Protestants and their Reformer heroes have separated justification from sanctification, affirming salvation without works and inner transformation. There have of course been inconsistencies in their pronouncements, Luther being self contradictory, but the emphatic assertion of many Protestants, following Luther, has been that works and inner change have no part in justification. Listen to for example on R C Sproul's teaching of Luther's extra nos, alien righteousness, snow covering the dunghill notions. For a careful study of the differences between Roman Catholicism and Proteestantism on the matter, you should read Johann Adam Moehler's Symbolik, in which he gives close attention to the works of Luther, Calvin and Zwingli. You should also note that Anglicanism is not Lutheranism, Calvinism or Zwinglianism, although there are Anglicans who follow them. There have long been Anglican theologians who disagree with Protestant views on justification. Bishop Alexander Penrose Forbes' work on The Thirty Nine Articles is worth reading.
@anselman3156 That's manifestly untrue, both in Luther's "Two Kinds of Righteousness" and Calvin in the Institutes, who explicitly locates justification in Union with Christ:
"First, we must understand that as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separate from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us. Therefore to share with us what he has received from the Father he had to become ours and to dwell within us. For this reason, he is called “our head” [Eph 4:15], and ‘the first-born among many brethren” [Rom 8:29]. We also, in turn, are said to be ‘engrafted into him” [Rom 11:17] and to ‘put on Christ [Gal 3:27]; for as I have said, all that he possesses is nothing to us until we grow into one body with him. It is true that we obtain this by faith. Yes since we see that not all indiscriminately embrace that communion with Christ which is offered through the gospel, reason itself teaches us to climb higher and to examine into the secret energy of the Spirit, by which we come to enjoy Christ and all his benefits.”
Luther never wrote that alien righteousness is akin to a snow covering a dunghill. I highly recommend to you Todd Billing's "Calvin, Participation, and the Gift", Richard Hooker's Learned discourse on Justification, and Luther's "Two Kinds of Righteousness" as well as Luther's "Treatise on Good Works." The Regensberg Colloquy on Justification in Particular is also worth reading.
@anselman3156 For more on Calvin:
:Justification and sanctification, gifts of grace, go together as if tied by an inseparable bond, so that if anyone tries to separate them, he is, in a sense, tearing Christ to pieces. Sanctification doesn’t just flow from justification, so that one produces the other. Both come from the same Source. Christ justifies no one whom He does not also sanctify. By virtue of our union with Christ, He bestows both gifts, the one never without the other."
Calvin’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians 1:30, Volume XX, Baker, 1993, p. 93.
Why, then, are we justified by faith? Because by faith we grasp Christ’s righteousness, by which alone we are reconciled to God. Yet you could not grasp this without at the same time grasping sanctification also. For he ‘is given unto us for righteousness, wisdom, sanctification, and redemption’ (1 Cor 1:30). Therefore Christ justifies no one whom he does not at the same time sanctify. These benefits are joined together by an everlasting and indissoluble bond, so that those whom he illumines by his wisdom, he redeems; those whom he redeems, he justifies; those whom he justifies, he sanctifies. But, since the question concerns only righteousness and sanctification, let us dwell upon these. Although we may distinguish them, Christ contains both of them inseparably in himself. Do you wish, then, to attain righteousness in Christ? You must first possess Christ; but you cannot possess him without being made partaker of his sanctification, because he cannot be divided into pieces (1 Cor. 1:13). Since, therefore, it is solely by expending himself that the Lord gives us these benefits to enjoy, he bestows both of them at the same time, the one never without the other. Thus it is clear how true it is that we are justified not without works yet not through works, since in our sharing in Christ, which justifies us, sanctification is just as much included as righteousness." (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion. Found in The Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), Volume XIX, Book III, Ch. XVI.1
@@anglicanaesthetics As I said, Luther and Lutherans were inconsistent. As Moehler shows in his work Symbolism, Luther said things which Lutherans have contradicted. Luther was emphatic on the forensic nature of justification, on the righteousness extra nos, and denied that the faith which justifies is the faith which worketh by charity. He was at pains to deny the necessity for charity in justifying faith. When the assembly of Catholics and Lutherans met at Ratisbon in 1541, and agreed on a statement "It is a settled and sound doctrine, that sinful man is justified by living and active faith; for by it are we rendered agreeable and well pleasing unto God for Christ's sake", Luther condemned it as "a wretched, botched note". Although Lutherans did not consistently follow Luther, the fact is that Protestants have emphasised Luther's doctrine as being of forensic justification, one of legal standing as against one of interior change. It is modern revisionists such as the Finnish Mannermaa who have been emphasising another side of Luther's thinking on the matter of union with Christ by faith as necessarily involving an interior change and not a mere external extra nos alien righteousness. Elsewhere Moehler quotes Luther's objection to the necessity of charity in justifying faith. I have also read non Lutheran or Calvinists speaking of justified persons being still at enmity with God until a subsequent experience of sanctification. I am sure you must be aware of the predominant Protestant emphasis on mere forensic justification, imputed righteousness as opposed to imparted righteousness, since the 16th century and until today, There is contradiction and confusion among Protestants on the matters of justification, sanctification and regeneration. This is well brought out in vatican catholic's "Protestantism's Justifiication lie" video (which includes the Sproul speech on "alien righteousness".
@@anselman3156 It's simply incorrect that the emphasis of the Finnish school was revision in terms of connecting justification to union with Christ. The Finnish school argued that justification for Luther *meant* (btw, the "Finnish Mannermaa" is not a thing. Mannerma was the founder of the Finnish school). But that Luther connected it to union with Christ is clear from his sermon "Two kinds of righteousness." Luther writes,
"Therefore this alien righteousness, instilled in us without our works by grace alone-while
the Father, to be sure, inwardly draws us to Christ-is set opposite original sin, likewise alien,
which we acquire without our works by birth alone. Christ daily drives out the old Adam more The second kind of righteousness is our proper righteousness, not because we alone work it,
but because we work with that first and alien righteousness. This is that manner of life spent
profitably in good works, in the first place, in slaying the flesh and crucifying the desires with
respect to the self, of which we read in Gal. 5[:24]: “And those who belong to Christ Jesus have
crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.” In the second place, this righteousness consists
in love to one’s neighbor, and in the third place, in meekness and fear toward God. The Apostle
is full of references to these, as is all the rest of Scripture. He briefly summarizes everything,
however, in Titus 2[:12]: “In this world let us live soberly (pertaining to crucifying one’s own
flesh), justly (referring to one’s neighbor), and devoutly (relating to God).”"
And I've already quoted Calvin's direct comments on the matter. So just asserting that I'm wrong by quoting a 19th century Catholic won't do it.
@@anglicanaesthetics Where does the snow-covered dunghills statement come from then, if not from Luther? And why do Sproul and others use it, it seems? Genuinely curious