I just read CC's response to The Protestant view of justification-is it Biblical?* (by the way--we need a "like post" feature . . . his was an excellent response there). I have said this several times in the past, but I really think this is worth being its own issue:

There is no such thing as "the Protestant view" of anything."

It is surprising to me (well, maybe not surprising, but worth noting) how often that phrase, or some version of it, is used . . . "protestants believe," "the protestant faith, " the protestant understanding," etc. Some of the most highly educated users here say those types of things.

I'm not trying to be pedantic. I think this is actually a substantive point. I think it is perfectly fair to talk about "the Catholic faith" or "the Catholic view" on many issues. That is, in fact, one of the major appeals of your faith, that (in theory anyway) such a unity of belief exists. But when you talk about "the protestant view," not only do you end up attacking a strawman and leave yourself open to someone (like me) coming along and saying, "Yeah, they believe that, but I don't, so your argument doesn't apply!"--in other words, not only are you just using a less than persuasive approach to apologetics generally--you also unintentionally water down one of the great strengths of Catholicism! By placing "Protestantism" alongside "Catholicism" as if the former exists as some sort of unified, coherent body of beliefs, you either unnecessarily elevate the former and unnecessarily debase the latter.

My own highly unsolicited advice here would be to stop talking about such silly matters entirely . . . the presumption of unity the statement itself makes is at odds with what all of you know actually to be the case (even if some people here go the other other extreme and make the asinine argument that there are tens of thousands of Protestant denominations as proof of the disunity of belief). But if you must talk about it, then might I suggest talking about "non-Catholic views"? Such language avoids the problems I've suggested above. Alternatively, you can narrow your labels to individuals, communions of churches, or specific schools of thought. So you can talk about TheJack's view, about Reformed Theology, about Southern Baptist theology (as least as presented in the Baptist Faith and Message), etc.

I think if we were to do this, conversations would be more fruitful and disagreements would be brought into sharper relief (which would make such conversations more educational and hopefully edifying).

Just my $.02

edit:

Weird. I can't dress the link to the thread I mentioned in the first line of this post. I get an error message saying that I don't have permission to post on the server. :-/

So here's the link to the thread I was talking about, specifically to CC's post:

viewtopic.php?p=2693198#p2693198

Well put, I've done that myself not a few times.

God bless you,

-BHM

Not only is ‘the Protestant view’ a meaningless expression (as the term has evolved), but so is ‘the Lutheran view.’ Lutheranism is not a Church, but a tradition, in some respects similar to, say, Byzantinism. You cannot state ‘the Byzantian view,’ as Byzantinism includes, to use one example, both churches which are in communion with, and upholds the supremacy of, the Roman Pontiff (such as Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church), and churches which aren’t in communion with, and rejects the supremacy of, the Roman Pontiff (such as the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow patriarchate).

Every Church or (ecclesial)* community of churches needs to be taken on their own terms.

* I use this to exclude things like the World Council of Churches or the Lutheran World Federation. Neither of these are ecclesial structures, and there are member churches of each who aren’t in communion with one another.

Or the "Anglican view." Or the "Baptist vew." Etc.

I don't like "...in the Eastern rite" because there is no "Eastern rite".

Even low-church modern popular Protestant Evangelical writers and speakers - who might appear side by side in the bookstore, or come back to back on TV - cannot all be placed in the same theological bucket.

Hear, hear.

Reminds me of a joke my dad used to tell:

I've always assumed the guy was Baptist.

I told that same joke to someone just a week or so back.

The Protestant view of justification-is it Biblical?*
Here's mine.
Justification naturally follows Sanctification even if there is a fraction of a second between them, for sanctification is the setting apart of a man to be made holy by God and justification is the act of declaring the man holy after he is sanctified (Acts 26:18 "To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me."), while justification is a change of state from sin to holiness, and a new standing before God.

Sanctification in the initial stage is that of separation and cleansing the sinner who sanctifies and separates himself from sin and turns to God. Justification, in the initial act, is that of declaring a sinner righteous. Sanctification makes the sinner not guilty, and justification declares him not guilty. Sanctification is more the act of a man being made righteous and holy and a full citizen of Heaven.
God cannot justify a man until He has sanctified and cleansed him of all sin. He could not legally declare a man not guilty who is still guilty of the least sin, much less should he have the old man, the biggest sin, in him. God cannot tolerate half heartedness in choice and service. He requires our all in obeying the moral law. He accepts nothing as virtue but entire obedience to His law. Any act contrary to His law is sin, and inbred sin, is no exception. God could not justify a man who is not free from inbred sin and who is not perfectly Holy as far as the sin-question is concerned He cannot justify a sinner who only renders partial obedience. The law must be repealed that condemns inbred sin, before God can justify one who is still condemned by being under control of this sin which is the very devil himself working in the children of disobedience (Ephesians 2:1-3). God could not justify a man who is still bound by the devil and who is still a slave to sin and Satan.

OK, but what's the Protestant view on this thread?

Sorry, my view is that facile and annoying cracks get funnier with repetition.

Hey, it worked for Letterman!

Is there such a thing as "the gherkinist view"?

Well, the Protestant view on that is that there certainly is not. Presbyterians, however, think there may just be.

Sorry, I just have to chime in on a silly point of the quoted text -
"God can't?" Really?

Further, it has been my personal understanding that we are not in a state of complete sanctification until we actually reach Heaven, via Purgatory if need be.

Please, someone who is well versed on this respond? I'll not have been a Catholic a year until Easter....curious about the phrasing and terminology here....

Thanks
~Smiddy

That depends on what you mean by ‘sanctify.’ The root meaning of ‘sacred’ or ‘holy’ is ‘set apart.’ When a thing is sanctified (like a church, a chalice, or whatever) it is set apart, and is only to be used in its proper setting. We don’t, for example, use a eucharistic chalice to drink soda or the baptismal font to wash up.

In this meaning, we are sanctified by God when we are set apart for him, and become his (children). In baptism, we were sanctified, as St. Paul states, in Tit 3:4-7 (emphasis added):

4 but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.

Here we see that justification follows the presence of the Spirit, and his sanctification. This is also the Lutheran understanding. In Confessio Augustana, art. 4, it is said that «men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.» But in art. 5, it is said that in order that «we may obtain this faith, the Ministry of Teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted. For through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, the Holy Ghost is given, who works faith.»

According to Lutheran understanding, then, the Holy Spirit is given us through the means of grace, and he «works faith,» the faith which then subsequently justifies. So yes, sanctification logically precedes justification.

On the other hand, by ‘sanctification’ you can mean growing in holiness and living the life that a child of God ought to lead. That we are set apart for a new life.

The words are used with different meaning.

We are not “saved” by Christ’s suffering and death on the cross, but we are REDEEMED, and for salvation we have to work that out in fear and trembling.

The crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus has REDEEMED us from our fallen state in which heaven had been closed, but our SALVATION depends upon our cooperation with His saving Grace.

What is lacking is our co-operation. That is precisely why St Paul teaches: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” (Philippians 2:12). We don’t achieve salvation in one fell swoop by accepting Christ as our personal saviour as some are misled to feel.

So, St Paul:
“But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.” (1Cor 9:27). And again: “Wherefore he who thinks that he stands, let him take heed lest he fall.” (1 Cor 10:12). Yet again, “And we exhort you not to receive the grace of God in vain.” (2 Cor 6:1).

“All, of us have a scrutiny to undergo before Christ’s judgment-seat, for each to reap what his mortal life has earned, good or ill, according to his deeds.” (2 Cor 5:10).

ok cool, I "get" what is being said here with the terminology that I am definitely not used to....
See, the only actual "religious education" I had before RCIA, was in different ministry classes in the UMC, which meant John Wesley-Anglican, who preached "prevenient grace" first (sorta like the old "limbo"), then "justifying grace," when one is baptized and accepts Christ, then "sanctifying grace," wherein one would live until complete sanctification in Heaven, always trying really hard to "be a good boy" sort of thing, until death or the 2nd Coming.

So, that is, now that I think of it and type it, the reason y I just figured that Sanctification comes AFTER Justification....

Further, I still have no really clear understanding of Justification to start with. (If anyone wishes to explain, PLEASE be a Catholic...)

I read in a book during RCIA, the title of which I can't recall, that during this life we are to seek as much sanctification through Holy living (& stuff like that) as possible - venial sin requiring confession and penance, but not landing one directly into Hell, but if one were to die in a state of mortal sin, that would indeed land them into Hell.

So, from that, as well as the previously mentioned UM "education," it just seemed logical to me that while we are mortals, we must essentially "crucify our flesh" seeking a higher state of Sanctification, striving for whatever state Saints die in, but never actually reaching that total sanctification as mortals, with the one exception of Saints, that I have no idea how to even understand, much less have ANY sort of knowledge about, basically to "cut down time" in Purgatory.

It was also my understanding, erroneous or otherwise, that regardless of what state one is in when they die, they must go through even a "short-sentence" in Purgatory to perfect their souls to be able to enter Heaven.

k, that's where I was coming from. If there are Catholics here who can "school me" on these things, please do. I ask that non-Catholics refrain from such simply because I am a new Catholic and wish to avoid any and all confusion about such things.

Thanks ya all
~S

You are right Jack, unless the "protestant-view" within a conversation is qualified to mean a particular point of doctrine shared among all baptized non-Catholics and not held by Catholics, then you could say, "the protestant-view". Or no?