Gryphonette
Moderator
I in no way intend to dismiss or discount how justification is being twisted and warped these days, but It seems to me the twisting and warping actually begins at a more basic doctrine, i.e. "salvation."
For all its faults - and they are legion - the RCC doesn't define "salvation" differently than does traditional Reformed thought. Put rather inelegantly, salvation effectively means if someone dies, that someone will eventually wind up in glory.
The "eventually" is necessary due to the RCC's imaginative doctrine of purgatory, of course. But back when I was RC, it was understood that while purgatory's not any fun, it's still a positive thing to find oneself there, as it means one will someday go on to glory.
Point being, "salvation" is intrinsically tied to "glorification" in both the RCC system and the traditional Reformed system.
Since the Reformers and the RCC had no real disagreement on what it means to be saved, the focus naturally was on the area in which they did disagree, i.e. how one is saved, and whether one's salvation can be lost.
But the FV and the NPP are hand-in-hand in their redefinition of "salvation", splitting it into current, temporal salvation and final, eternal salvation, with someone able to be saved in the former sense at the same time not being saved in the latter sense, thus severing the tie between salvation and glorification. This way of looking at "What does it mean to be saved?" is different from both the traditional Reformed and RCC systems.
I'm thinking it's counterproductive to continue to argue with the adherents of the FV and/or the NPP about justification, since the basic soteriological disagreement lies further back in what salvation actually is. If people cannot agree on what salvation is, there's no way they're going to agree on justification.
A lot of the people in the pews have never thought deeply on justification, considering it to be one of those $64 words that theologians like to talk about, but the PiP's do have definite fixed beliefs about salvation. They're likely to either tune out when they hear or read "justification" or, because they're not rock solid on what it is, they're unable to distinguish the errors being taught about it when they come across 'em.
They're clear on what "salvation" is, however. If they could be shown the errors being taught about that, it would provide a hedge of protection against the rest of the heterodoxy being promoted by those who should know better.
I'm thinking it's a mistake to not concentrate harder on how the FV and NPP have been changing the definition of what it means to be saved.
OTOH, I could be all wet.
Thoughts?
For all its faults - and they are legion - the RCC doesn't define "salvation" differently than does traditional Reformed thought. Put rather inelegantly, salvation effectively means if someone dies, that someone will eventually wind up in glory.
The "eventually" is necessary due to the RCC's imaginative doctrine of purgatory, of course. But back when I was RC, it was understood that while purgatory's not any fun, it's still a positive thing to find oneself there, as it means one will someday go on to glory.
Point being, "salvation" is intrinsically tied to "glorification" in both the RCC system and the traditional Reformed system.
Since the Reformers and the RCC had no real disagreement on what it means to be saved, the focus naturally was on the area in which they did disagree, i.e. how one is saved, and whether one's salvation can be lost.
But the FV and the NPP are hand-in-hand in their redefinition of "salvation", splitting it into current, temporal salvation and final, eternal salvation, with someone able to be saved in the former sense at the same time not being saved in the latter sense, thus severing the tie between salvation and glorification. This way of looking at "What does it mean to be saved?" is different from both the traditional Reformed and RCC systems.
I'm thinking it's counterproductive to continue to argue with the adherents of the FV and/or the NPP about justification, since the basic soteriological disagreement lies further back in what salvation actually is. If people cannot agree on what salvation is, there's no way they're going to agree on justification.
A lot of the people in the pews have never thought deeply on justification, considering it to be one of those $64 words that theologians like to talk about, but the PiP's do have definite fixed beliefs about salvation. They're likely to either tune out when they hear or read "justification" or, because they're not rock solid on what it is, they're unable to distinguish the errors being taught about it when they come across 'em.
They're clear on what "salvation" is, however. If they could be shown the errors being taught about that, it would provide a hedge of protection against the rest of the heterodoxy being promoted by those who should know better.
I'm thinking it's a mistake to not concentrate harder on how the FV and NPP have been changing the definition of what it means to be saved.
OTOH, I could be all wet.
Thoughts?