Skip to main content

Catholic/Protestant : present/future sense of justification, purification, etc

This is not a big discovery for others, and I probably heard it before somewhere.  But the Catholic sense of salvation is of being right with the Lord here and now.  And that sort of being-saved naturally gives rise to a process of growth that goes on throughout a lifetime.  And that process can, unfortunately, be terminated: one can get un-saved.  But one can also joyfully give the Lord the glory here and now while entrusting the future to Him.

Certain flavors of Protestantism, however, seem to me to understand being saved as meaning one knows that one will go to heaven when one dies.  This meaning is more like the turning on of a switch, whereas the former was more like conception or the so-called animation of a seed.

Note that the former is consistent with an ontological view of justification, while the second is consistent with a juridical view.  And that contrast parallels nicely the contrast between the natural law and the divine command approach to morality.  And the latter approach is by nature restricted to understanding good and evil in instrumental terms, i.e., in terms of future rewards and punishments, while the former in terms of intrinsic value and dignity.

It's getting late as I'm writing this, but it's worth noting that different takes on the question of purgatory follow the same contrast.  The ontological understanding of morality/justification would lead one to think that the psyche has to be purified to be able to enjoy the presence of the Lord.  Even juridical talk of purgatory would easily be translated by such into "ontological" terms: i.e., as being ultimately about repairing a relationship.  The Protestant with the juridical approach to justification, however, would see no need for a growth/purgation processes, as justification already turns "on" the switch via imputation.  Such a person would understand purgatory as a denial that the switch of justification had been turned on.

More later...

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

P F Strawson's Freedom and Resentment: the argument laid out

Here is a summary and comments on the essay Freedom and Resentment by PF Strawson.  He makes some great points, and when he is wrong, it is in such a way as to clarify things a great deal.  My non-deterministic position is much better thanks to having read this.  I’ll summarize it in this post and respond in a later one. In a nutshell: PFS first argues that personal resentment that we may feel toward another for having failed to show goodwill toward us would have no problem coexisting with the conviction that determinism is true.  Moral disapprobation, as an analog to resentment, is likewise capable of coexisting with deterministic convictions. In fact, it would seem nearly impossible for a normally-constituted person (i.e., a non-sociopath) to leave behind the web of moral convictions, even if that person is a determinist.  In this way, by arguing that moral and determinist convictions can coexist in the same person, PFS undermines the libertarian argument ...
Post a Comment
Read more

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...
6 comments
Read more

interesting article by Jimmy Akin on death before the Fall

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-animals-die-before-the-fall/ Akin below: Aquinas.... writes: In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state, have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by man's sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon. Nor does Bede's gloss on Genesis 1:30, say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some. Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals  [ Summa Theologiae I:96:1 ad 2 ].  Aquinas thus holds that it was not  all  death that entered the world through man's sin, but human  death.
Post a Comment
Read more