Grubal Muruch
Member
This crossed my mind on my drive into work this morning. The subject of justification.
To be fair, I make a big distinction between the Catholic church of today and the Catholic church of during the 16th century at the time of the reformation. I leave some room for the idea of a type of "cooperation" between us and Christ as so far as our relationship with him, and the work being done within us, but I give far more credence to the ideology of Christ imputed righteousness to us, rather than a "tangible" righteousness existing within us, as if there is some effort in tandem with Christ, which is how I view infused righteousness.
Now, I know I've set myself up for argument in saying this, but I don't mean to say that we do not display, express, or exercise in some way, the righteousness of Christ. I only mean that any righteousness we do express, or display, or offer in some way, either publicly or privately, is not of us, but of Christ only.
What I am expressing here may seem to be getting away from the main topic of justification, but I think you would agree that it runs concurrent, in so much as our Christian life is very much tied to our initial salvation and how we conceptualize that salvation.
So for me, If I am not initially justified by my own abilities to be so, then I am no more worthy ((((on my own))) after justification to be righteous, and that any righteousness within me is ONLY the righteousness of Christ Jesus, not of myself in any way. I don't see a difference between forensic justification and Infused righteousness. I am open to the idea that I may be making a mistake within my own understanding. This may be a difference in definition of infused vs Imputed righteousness, but I offer it for the purpose of definition, my definition, and I would like to hear more about yours and Catholicism today as it relates to infused vs imputed.
To save space thought I'd double up on one post
Yes Grubal. I would like to correct this error, and I think you for the opportunity.
Rather than rephrase what I've said; "I accepted my salvation." Allow me to make the correction with an explanation, because I can see how you would think this being a slip on my part, based on what I've said of salvation vs what you've expressed of your own understanding of salvation in other threads. You deserve an explanation.
So here is another explanation of the difference between those who feel they have somehow earned their salvation by making all the right choices, and those, such as my self, who feel we are chosen by God by accepting our salvation which is available to all.
Rather than have chosen to be saved on my own by God for fear of Hell, I gave no thought, and still don't, to the idea that I am being saved from anything more destructive than my own self which I relate to Hell. In other words for me, Hell is no worse than my own nature. I see myself as no good in me, of my own self.
This is not to say that I was a "bad person" by man's definition, but that my nature, the nature of every man, is no good. So in that, I knew Satin well before I ever knew Christ, but I did not know that until I meet Christ, and only after accepting my salvation did I know the difference. After all, how can one who is not saved know what it's like to be separated from God, when they are already separated from God? No one can know this separation until they are first in relationship with God.
Some people see themselves in the middle with God on one end and Satin on the other and they decide to walk towards God because they fear the other. One is better than the other from what they have "heard" from the word.
Although we can both say our hope lies in Christ, their initial hope lies in their ability to make the right decision to accept and be accepted by Christ so that they don't end up in Hell. My initial hope lies in Christ ability to accept me regardless of me, which is not something up to me, but only him.
Where others searched for Christ, I was found by Christ. Where others work to be more like Christ, I allow Christ to do with me as he will. Where others ask Christ to do for them, I ask Christ for what he'd have of me. My trust in Christ is completely of Christ. Some others trust in Christ is also shared in their ability to make the right moves for Christ.
So the error in the phrase, "I accepted my salvation.", lies in the understanding of the difference between working by effort for ones salvation and what is simply accepting salvation by pure faith alone, when in fact one realizes there is no choice because one was already dead before salvation.
Here are phrases I can relate to my salvation; I was lost and now I'm found. I was blind and now I see. These statements leave no alternative to the faith found in the reality of the end result of being saved. It's real, It happened, on solid ground. It's tangible.
Here are the same phrases rewritten to match a meritorious, or earned view of salvation. : I was lost and wondering which way to go.I saw this sign pointing this way. It looked good to me and so that's the way I went, and I hope it ends well. I trust it will based on my ability to make the right decision on my direction, because I'm told it leads to being found and when I get there I'll be found.
*** OR ***
I was blind, so I did something by choice to have a procedure and now I can see.......... These statements leave alternatives to the faith not found in the end result, because there is yet to be an end result, but to hope in the means to an end.
I don't hope to be saved, I am. I don't hope for eternal life with Christ. I already have it. I'm just physically living out my time here until God brings me home, and I care not when that is, because whenever it is it will be the right time for him to do so. I have no choice, and I do not want the choice.
*** One last illustration to make a point about salvation by faith only.
life guards are often trained not to go in after a flailing victim. Why? because they will place themselves at risk of drowning as well, because the flailing victim is so fearful of the water and of drowning that he will cling to anything, including the one who is trying to save his life.
Rather, life guards, are trained to wait until the victim has worn themselves down. CPR is very affective and you can bring someone into shore a lot easier when they have given up trying to save themselves.
That person only has real hope once they realize they have been saved. They only have real faith in the life guard once they have been revived.
Before actually being saved, when they where flailing in the water fearful for their life, worried and frightened, we can say they had hope and faith in the life guard, but if they truly did they would have just relaxed. What they think was hope and faith in the life guard was nothing more at the time than a strong desire to be saved. However, once a drowning victim has been saved, there is no more fear of the condition, the situation they where once in.
Many people hold a thought that they can willfully choose to be saved, by choosing God. Some of those people, maybe many, I've no idea, will take their "choice" even further and waddle in their own worry, always asking themselves "I'm I actually saved"? The reason I think this often comes up is because these people are still holding on to their own will for their own life, which they value far more than they are willing to trust in the salvation God provides.
In their doubt they will often set up their own rules and use scripture to back up their "goodness". They will make clear distinctions of what is sin and what is not in hope and determination that they will follow the rules so that they may be found blameless in the eyes of God when it comes to the judgement of God.
What they fail to realize is that in this schema, they are not trusting in God at all, but rather in their own abilities. In the end they will often saying things like; we can't really know we are saved until the end when we know for sure. They are trusting in a means to an end, rather than the end which provides the means.
I can't ask "I'm I really saved?" I know for a fact, and I know for me it has nothing what so ever to do with me. How do I know this? because I was blind and now I see. I was lost and now I'm found. I did nothing to heal myself, or find myself. If Jesus wants to say it was my faith, then let him say that, but it was no faith in me that he did not provide me. Just as the blind man did not say he had anything to do with his own recovery of sight.
I think at this point I've been as honest with my belief and understanding as I can be. I've tried to use all of my own words here, no religious saying's, no flowery speeches. I am unarmed.
On thing I noticed that I don't think I mentioned to you in regards to your testimony is that I found it very much like that of Martin Luther, your story that is.
He was also terrified of Hell and he did all he could to be the man he thought he needed to be to be truly saved. He finally accepted his salvation, that was there all along, the moment he realized that his salvation had nothing to do with his effort to be saved , and if I can quote Martin Luther; "my conscience lies in the word of God. Here I stand. I can do no other." This is a quote from what some might say was his darkest hour.
Hope that clears it up.
No offence, but not really...Was there a time in your life when you first heard the word, and were convicted of the Spirit and placed your faith in Christ as Lord and Savior?? Faith is "essential" to Salvation, without it, you cannot be saved...
I still want to talk about how we are justified by Christ.
:
