How did Jesus Christ save us?

[francisdesales]

I understand what you mean, but i don't see true faith (Justification) as a legal matter, and I accept that many Catholics don't either, but it's more than safe to say, that we have people in both of our camps who see the "legal' side of justification. Fair?

Fair, in a different way.

I do not know of any Catholics who think that they are saved for heaven upon their baptism, or that justification at that point (initial justification) means guaranteed eternal life. However, I do know that some incorrectly take the view of legalism - "if I go to Mass on Sunday and contribute financially to the Church, I'm good with God".

This could be very sticky since unlike your camp, we do not have a formal head.

That gives me the advantage of picking on your official word, and you the advantage of picking any group of protestant you choose, but I would ask that you stick within the reformation leaders as far as doctrine.

Shall we go there and talk more about justification?

If the Mods don't mind. The Council of Trent would be the formative documents on this question from our side. I believe that the Catholics and Anglican/Lutherans have made some large steps in discussing this subject in the last 20 years, although the press has exaggerated some areas of agreement and still remain areas of disagreement - although both sides have lifted some anathemas, I believe. I think some of the issues of the Reformation era stem from definitions and polemics, but there still seems to be some major areas of disagreement.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_just.htm

It does appear that modern day Lutheranism (and many other Protestant Reformers) have taken the more Catholic idea of "transformational justification", as opposed to the Calvin/Luther idea of "imputed justification". (Inner change, v a merely external status). Even classical Reformers broke with Luther/Calvin quickly, such as Melanchthon, Osiander, Martin Bucer and Zwingli. The former, of course, was instrumental in formulating the Augsburg Confession, its Apology, and the Formula of Concord, three of Lutheranism's major doctrinal statements.

Regards

 

[Danus]

Fair, in a different way.

I do not know of any Catholics who think that they are saved for heaven upon their baptism, or that justification at that point (initial justification) means guaranteed eternal life. However, I do know that some incorrectly take the view of legalism - "if I go to Mass on Sunday and contribute financially to the Church, I'm good with God".

True and you've hint on the primary difference between Rome and the Reformation.

While some protestant's do not fit well with the idea of Initial Justification and saved from that point on, that is the foundation of the reformed view when it comes to justification. Once and done, in so much as one's salvation. We "reformist" do not view this process as legalistic, requiring anything on behalf of God or man for say. this is by the grace of God.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_just.htm

It does appear that modern day Lutheranism (and many other Protestant Reformers) have taken the more Catholic idea of "transformational justification", as opposed to the Calvin/Luther idea of "imputed justification". (Inner change, v a merely external status). Even classical Reformers broke with Luther/Calvin quickly, such as Melanchthon, Osiander, Martin Bucer and Zwingli. The former, of course, was instrumental in formulating the Augsburg Confession, its Apology, and the Formula of Concord, three of Lutheranism's major doctrinal statements.

Regards

Well, I think all Christians with the faith, would agree that there is further process of growth we call "Sanctification", and while this may be evidence of ones salvation over time, it's more of no surprise to anyone justified saved. It just is. As Luther eluded to, it, "Sanctification" is as much to justification as heat and light are to fire. You can not separate it.

BUT, people often "Seek" merit through deeds in the name of their own salvation. This to us is not an example of real faith, but of said faith.

This seems required by Rome. It is not within the reformed understanding of salvation, because it is self-evident to anyone's salvation.

I may be on thin ice with this. I don't want to give the impression that Catholics aren't saved or don't have faith, that's not what I'm saying. But I'm eluding to the process after justification, of penance for retaining or furthering salvation. That seems legalistic and unnecessary to ones salvation.

This may be a can -O-worms, but I like worms.

 

[Adullam]

True and you've hint on the primary difference between Rome and the Reformation.

While some protestant's do not fit well with the idea of Initial Justification and saved from that point on, that is the foundation of the reformed view when it comes to justification. Once and done, in so much as one's salvation. We "reformist" do not view this process as legalistic, requiring anything on behalf of God or man for say. this is by the grace of God.





Well, I think all Christians with the faith, would agree that there is further process of growth we call "Sanctification", and while this may be evidence of ones salvation over time, it's more of no surprise to anyone justified saved. It just is. As Luther eluded to, it, "Sanctification" is as much to justification as heat and light are to fire. You can not separate it.

BUT, people often "Seek" merit through deeds in the name of their own salvation. This to us is not an example of real faith, but of said faith.

This seems required by Rome. It is not within the reformed understanding of salvation, because it is self-evident to anyone's salvation.

I may be on thin ice with this. I don't want to give the impression that Catholics aren't saved or don't have faith, that's not what I'm saying. But I'm eluding to the process after justification, of penance for retaining or furthering salvation. That seems legalistic and unnecessary to ones salvation.

This may be a can -O-worms, but I like worms.

Apparently Luther had a Diet of Worms! ;)

 

[Danus]

Apparently Luther had a Diet of Worms! ;)

Care to expand on that so that it might make some sense?

 

[jasoncran]

the diet of worms was the coucil where they defrocked luther and try to force him to recant his position.

 

[Danus]

the diet of worms was the coucil where they defrocked luther and try to force him to recant his position.

...the Edict of Worms.....I make referances I do do realize and then I don't even see them.

 

[francisdesales]

While some protestant's do not fit well with the idea of Initial Justification and saved from that point on, that is the foundation of the reformed view when it comes to justification. Once and done, in so much as one's salvation. We "reformist" do not view this process as legalistic, requiring anything on behalf of God or man for say. this is by the grace of God.

The Catholic position also relies ultimately on God's grace, to even prepare us to receive the gift of faith that leads to regeneration. Trent is clear on this. However, the idea of merit (condign) exists because we understand there is a difference between primary (God) and secondary (man) causes. Man is judged on the basis of those secondary causes/choices made, keeping in mind that God allows us to do so.

Well, I think all Christians with the faith, would agree that there is further process of growth we call "Sanctification", and while this may be evidence of ones salvation over time, it's more of no surprise to anyone justified saved.

I see no point in sanctification if one thinks "justified and done". If one is covered completely by Jesus, why does it matter what one does afterwards? Why does it matter if one becomes holy or not? God the Father is blind to our daily murders once saved, no?

This was a big problem with Luther's initial doctrine. "Sin all the more". Seems at odds with what Paul wrote to the Romans about grace/sin.

As Luther eluded to, it, "Sanctification" is as much to justification as heat and light are to fire. You can not separate it.

That is true - the words are nearly synonymous for us... That is why there is no "one time justification". Justification is ongoing, as is sanctification.

BUT, people often "Seek" merit through deeds in the name of their own salvation. This to us is not an example of real faith, but of said faith.

It is a fine line, since we are supposed to seek out to do good. The inner motives of a good deed will be judged by God.

This seems required by Rome. It is not within the reformed understanding of salvation, because it is self-evident to anyone's salvation.

It is required of God, not of Rome! Practically every book in the NT speaks of the requirement to follow the Law, love others, etc - do good deeds - without which, we cannot enter eternal life. I think most would agree that the actual deed is not as important as what the motive is, since God doesn't need the deed, per sec, but desires our inner disposition to love. Those who love are of God, and that love will express itself.

I may be on thin ice with this. I don't want to give the impression that Catholics aren't saved or don't have faith,

WHEW!!!

that's not what I'm saying. But I'm eluding to the process after justification, of penance for retaining or furthering salvation. That seems legalistic and unnecessary to ones salvation.

Like I said before, if it is "one and done", there is no need for Paul to even write about love/faith/hope etc... Just believe once and your in...!

We view salvation not as an event, but an ongoing relationship with God. The proper way of viewing this is through the lense of a familial relationship, not where we earn brownie points with someone we don't really care about.

When we "ruin" that relationship with our Father, we must repent, rebuild that relationship with God's grace. This is quite biblical, hard to miss. GOD doesn't need us to confess, WE need to, it is part of what we as humans need to move on. Since we are being MADE holy, rather than simply declared so, it would follow that sanctification is a process of growth in Christ.

Regards

 

[Adullam]

I think this thread could more aptly be entitled "How DOES Jesus Christ save us?":waving

 

[francisdesales]

I think this thread could more aptly be entitled "How DOES Jesus Christ save us?":waving

Yea, you are correct.

Regards

 

[Danus]

The Catholic position also relies ultimately on God's grace, to even prepare us to receive the gift of faith that leads to regeneration. Trent is clear on this. However, the idea of merit (condign) exists because we understand there is a difference between primary (God) and secondary (man) causes. Man is judged on the basis of those secondary causes/choices made, keeping in mind that God allows us to do so.



I see no point in sanctification if one thinks "justified and done". If one is covered completely by Jesus, why does it matter what one does afterwards? Why does it matter if one becomes holy or not? God the Father is blind to our daily murders once saved, no?

This was a big problem with Luther's initial doctrine. "Sin all the more". Seems at odds with what Paul wrote to the Romans about grace/sin.



That is true - the words are nearly synonymous for us... That is why there is no "one time justification". Justification is ongoing, as is sanctification.



It is a fine line, since we are supposed to seek out to do good. The inner motives of a good deed will be judged by God.

Like I said before, if it is "one and done", there is no need for Paul to even write about love/faith/hope etc... Just believe once and your in...!

We view salvation not as an event, but an ongoing relationship with God. The proper way of viewing this is through the lense of a familial relationship, not where we earn brownie points with someone we don't really care about.

When we "ruin" that relationship with our Father, we must repent, rebuild that relationship with God's grace. This is quite biblical, hard to miss. GOD doesn't need us to confess, WE need to, it is part of what we as humans need to move on. Since we are being MADE holy, rather than simply declared so, it would follow that sanctification is a process of growth in Christ.

Regards

OK, well, let's back up just a bit. ;)

I've touched on a few arguments about the Catholic church in so much as traditions, rituals and such, as they seem to many Protestants to be related to salvation.

Let me start by offering an apology up front. My intent is not to misinterpret, but to lay some old argument out on the table and see what you did with it.

However, your counter to the Protestant view of salvation has also laid an old argument on the table that clearly waters down the Protestant view. Perhaps your doing the same.

I'll admit I kind of used my argument as a tool, and I'm charging you with the same game, because I suspect you know more than you're presenting about how we (Protestants) see salvation, and sanctification; in saying things like, "I see no point in sanctification if one thinks "justified and done."

I think you know we see the importance of sanctification as evidence of salvation.

Initial salvation is being saved, justified. We both agree. You can die after that moment and be in the arms of God. Not much time in such a case for sanctification would you not agree? OR, you may live for some time longer with your salvation.

If you do live a longer life after that moment of salvation, then your growth as a Christian is not so much a partnership where one performs for God in the way He would have of you, with no intervention from God other than your efforts, or desire, for him to do the good work he started in you.

Rather, your salvation is self-evident in that you can't help but do what God would have you do, because you are saved, justified; he is in you, and will not leave you or dump you. That's not to say he will not correct you from time to time....working within you.

But, he's leading the effort, not you. These are thoughts one must link together, and not make one line statements that can easily be misconstrued., in saying that justification is a one stop shop, in speaking about how Jesus saves us.

As we talked about in another thread; one bares culpability, and responsibility, but one has a new nature at the point of salvation.

You are no more or less culpable or responsible than you where in your old nature. ...this is a sticking point, and one where I think we might split the hair between us, but our argument is; .... if you can't come to God without God, you can't grow in God without God, therefore your sanctification is also from God, not of any direct effort on your part.

One does not sanctify themselves in the Christian life, but rather are sanctified as a result of their justification alone, and not of their individual self effort.

So, it is unfair to say that Protestants believe that once you're saved your saved and it does not matter what you do after that because by Golly your saved....that's not what we believe and you know it, but on the surface it seems that's what we are saying when no more thought is given beyond that. Anyone can make that argument of the Protestant understanding and seem credible...but is it fair? Not at all.

However, it's also not fair to say that Catholics think that if they mess up and sin, that they loose salvation and have to get it back by doing some song and dance rutin. That's not the official belief of Rome, and I know that, but also on the surface it seems to be what Rome is saying, and anyone can also make that argument and get away with it unfairly.

What I like about "The Church" post reformation, is the structure it brings to the faith and Christian life. What I don't care for is the "idea" many have; maybe "some have" is better, that people need the church to intervene on their behalf, or for them, in their personal salvation....and you know what I'm talking about. As well, I know that the church can talk around this with explanation , and I accept that.

On the one hand people need structure and good teaching. We don't have to look far to see this in the the church, or outside the church, but God does not need the church to save people. He can and does do that without the church or even the best of teachers; which leads to the understanding that people need the freedom to have a personal relationship with God himself, without feeling they have to channel this relationship through an institution, church leader, or long past human who did great things.

In the end, and without me bringing up "the church" pre-reformation serious PR issues, we are left today, in many ways, in a political game for the furtherance of our own ideologies, One we can debate from now until Christ return, and probably will.

I often wonder what Luther, or Calvin or the many others of the reformation would say today if they where here. This is a conversation I had with a friend many years ago.

He thought they'd probably see how dangerous it was to allow the gospel loose in such an unregulated way ...like giving a loaded gun to a baby.

I think they would say "Big deal. So what." there is nothing today that was not known to God before hand, and we we ask the question "How does Jesus save us?" I think we can eliminate the idea that the church actually has anything directly involved in that effort, other than the PRIVILEGE of working on behalf of Christ only.

Jesus saves buy justifying the saved. (period) It's done once and we grow in our Christian life from there in a process of sanctification. Those who are saved have no direct effort in that but to be still, listen and allow Christ to do his work in us.

 

[jasoncran]

one doesnt have the power to change but one does have the power to grieve the spirit.

 

[francisdesales]

Let me start by offering an apology up front. My intent is not to misinterpret, but to lay some old argument out on the table and see what you did with it.

I see no need for you to apologize - they are/were your understandings and you are presenting them. There is no offense given in such a situation - as long as they are given with due respect. So let's continue with our respect for each other.

I think you know we see the importance of sanctification as evidence of salvation.

This argument seems to be lacking, in my mind.

The problem is that it presupposes that one must CONTINUE to follow God in virtual sinlessness. For any major stumbles would bring out the "doubters" in the 'congregation' who would then doubt a pastor of 30 years was ever saved to begin with because of some sexual advances towards another member's wife...

What are we to attribute those last 30 years of ministry to, the devil????

I think there is a serious issue with the idea of sanctification in the OSAS world, and that is why I brought it up. At what point would we say "he was never saved to begin with"? Are we so ready to condemn, without knowing the mind of God? Doesn't that make OSAS a farce - if one THINKS they were saved and later found out they "weren't"???

In addition, the idea that we are completely covered by Christ's righteousness dispenses of the need for one to BE righteous themselves!!! WHY BOTHER - can one be MORE righteous then Jesus? The Father will only 'see Jesus'. And to state that sanctification is "proof" of justification, that means that any future sin can be the means of undoing the spiritual walk - since now, you have proven you were NEVER saved to begin with!

Luther went too far.

Initial salvation is being saved, justified. We both agree. You can die after that moment and be in the arms of God. Not much time in such a case for sanctification would you not agree? OR, you may live for some time longer with your salvation.

As you no doubt know, Catholics believe that God provides a place for sanctification to continue, in the event that we die before that takes place. We believe that only the pure shall see God - and sanctification is that purifying process, occuring here in this world, and if necessary, ending in "purgatory". I am not bringing this up to argue over purgatory, but to mention that we believe God's plan will not be 'stopped' by such things as physical death. Sanctification has REAL meaning for us, we are not just "covered" by Someone else's righteousness. We must be MADE into the image of Christ.

If you do live a longer life after that moment of salvation, then your growth as a Christian is not so much a partnership where one performs for God in the way He would have of you, with no intervention from God other than your efforts, or desire, for him to do the good work he started in you.

Rather, your salvation is self-evident in that you can't help but do what God would have you do, because you are saved, justified; he is in you, and will not leave you or dump you. That's not to say he will not correct you from time to time....working within you.

I believe that man's free will is not removed after regeneration. We can continue to grieve the Spirit of God, we can even return to the vomit of our former lives and make a shipwreck of our faith. There is a particular synergy between us and God. God provides another guiding principle within us, the Spirit of God. But it does not override our temptations and desires automatically. Thus, Paul calls this a spiritual "battle" and arms us accordingly in Ephesians. Paul also uses military and other competitive language that strongly suggests that sanctification is not entirely up to God, but also depends upon ourselves, the secondary causes...

But, he's leading the effort, not you.

True, when we are actively following the ways of Christ. Each of us know of times in our lives when that was not happening.

As we talked about in another thread; one bares culpability, and responsibility, but one has a new nature at the point of salvation.

Adam also had a new nature, but he failed. This new nature in Christ, the Second Adam, does NOT mean that we cannot falter, as well. The Scriptures make it plainly clear that people CAN walk in the flesh, even after being regenerated and transformed.

You are no more or less culpable or responsible than you where in your old nature. ...

That's not what 2 Peter 2:20-22 states. Or Jesus, when He cast out the demons and suggested that the demon would bring his friends and that situation would be even WORSE than the former state. I believe that we are MORE culpable if we know the Gospel and later reject it. This is why Jesus was so critical of the Pharisees, they SHOULD have known better.

this is a sticking point, and one where I think we might split the hair between us, but our argument is; .... if you can't come to God without God, you can't grow in God without God, therefore your sanctification is also from God, not of any direct effort on your part.

You are presenting a false dichotomy... Either I do everything or God does everything. We state there is a partnership, we doing good together. He moves my will and desire to do good. I (not Christ) am being made more holy AS I ALLOW Christ to work within me. Know that I can interfere with Christ's work. My own pride, sloth, greed, jealousies, etc (and Paul lists many other vices that SAVED CHRISTIANS continue to have) prevent me from completely emptying myself and allowing Christ to fill me up.

One does not sanctify themselves in the Christian life, but rather are sanctified as a result of their justification alone, and not of their individual self effort.

No one sanctifies themselves, let's clarify that right away, so it is not said again...

Our justification does not sanctify us. Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit sanctify us.

So, it is unfair to say that Protestants believe that once you're saved your saved and it does not matter what you do after that because by Golly your saved....

It is sophistry to say "you were never saved to begin with". If someone believes they were saved, and then 10 years later, someone tosses out that line, how can one EVER KNOW that they really ARE saved??? We both agree that we CAN know we are saved PRESENTLY - at least to a moral degree (not absolute certainty).

that's not what we believe and you know it, but on the surface it seems that's what we are saying when no more thought is given beyond that.

Oh, trust me, I have given it thought, I deal with it on a monthly basis, I would think, since it is a re-occuring theme here... The arguments presented have not convinced me otherwise.

However, it's also not fair to say that Catholics think that if they mess up and sin, that they loose salvation and have to get it back by doing some song and dance rutin. That's not the official belief of Rome, and I know that, but also on the surface it seems to be what Rome is saying, and anyone can also make that argument and get away with it unfairly.

A definition would be in order.

To us, salvation USUALLY means "going to heaven". We GENERALLY do not point to the moment of redemption, but as the moment we enter eternal life in heaven... Thus, many Catholics are confused when speaking about "SO ARE YOU SAVED YET" when confronted by a Bible thumping visitor.

A rabid Catholic sinner "losing their salvation" would mean that they were on the road to hell and have thrown away THEIR INHERITANCE given at Baptism.

This is no different than in the OT. The Jews were always considered God's People, even when they sinned. They were ALL given the promise of the Covenant. However, the wicked Jew was "promised" the "pit", God's reward to those who chose not to follow the Covenant. But this relationship could be re-established (and saved from the pit) if that person turned back to God. I see Catholic confession in a similar manner. We have been all given the promise of eternal life. When we are wicked, we break the Covenantal relationship. Upon our return with sorrow and confession, we are again in a just relationship with God.

What I like about "The Church" post reformation, is the structure it brings to the faith and Christian life. What I don't care for is the "idea" many have; maybe "some have" is better, that people need the church to intervene on their behalf, or for them, in their personal salvation....and you know what I'm talking about. As well, I know that the church can talk around this with explanation , and I accept that.

This is going off topic, I believe. But remember that to us, the Church is a sacrament of Christ in the world. Christ chooses to act THROUGH the Church, whether by bringing us to life (baptism), healing us, forgiving our sins, feeding us, and so forth. God touches us through the lives of those of the Body.

On the one hand people need structure and good teaching. We don't have to look far to see this in the the church, or outside the church, but God does not need the church to save people.

Of course, but it is not a matter of what God needs, but what man needs... We NEED to say, "publically", that "I AM SORRY, I HAVE SINNED"... And to hear the words "YOU ARE FORGIVEN". It is a huge difference than going in private and asking God to forgive something.

I often wonder what Luther, or Calvin or the many others of the reformation would say today if they where here. This is a conversation I had with a friend many years ago.

He thought they'd probably see how dangerous it was to allow the gospel loose in such an unregulated way ...like giving a loaded gun to a baby.

I think they would say "Big deal. So what." there is nothing today that was not known to God before hand, and we we ask the question "How does Jesus save us?" I think we can eliminate the idea that the church actually has anything directly involved in that effort, other than the PRIVILEGE of working on behalf of Christ only.

One must wonder, then, why Christ established a Church to begin with...

Jesus saves buy justifying the saved. (period)

That sounds more like a bumper sticker than a theological statement.

That's like me saying "a monkey is a monkey".

It's done once and we grow in our Christian life from there in a process of sanctification. Those who are saved have no direct effort in that but to be still, listen and allow Christ to do his work in us.

If there is no direct effort in anything done regarding our salvation/justification, one must wonder why aren't "all men saved", as God desires. If you remove man from the formula, are we to believe that God randomly chooses whom to save? That doesn't seem in line with what Scriptures teach.

I think many non Catholic Christians are "deathly afraid" of considering the role of man in salvation. However, Scriptures make it clear that man is involved. He cannot do so without God. Read my signature line. There is no reason to fear we are taking away from God -

Man fully alive is God's glory.

it's a long post, so feel free to leave out what you don't want to continue with. It is difficult to go on with multi-subject threads, but I thought it would be nice to answer your concerns.

Regards

 

[Danus]

Good post, I like long post.

What I've done is rearranged your words a little, but only to get to the meat, I've taken great care not to take anything out of context, or loose your argument. Rather, I've taken one of my key statements and arranged your beliefs around it a bit.

The heart of my post, is that we are saved once, and as I stated; It's done once and we grow in our Christian life from there in a process of sanctification. Those who are saved have no direct effort in that (Sanctification) but to be still, listen and allow Christ to do his work in us.

it's a long post, so feel free to leave out what you don't want to continue with. It is difficult to go on with multi-subject threads, but I thought it would be nice to answer your concerns.

If there is no direct effort in anything done regarding our salvation/justification, one must wonder why aren't "all men saved", as God desires. If you remove man from the formula, are we to believe that God randomly chooses whom to save? That doesn't seem in line with what Scriptures teach.

Our justification does not sanctify us. Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit sanctify us.

As you no doubt know, Catholics believe that God provides a place for sanctification to continue, in the event that we die before that takes place. We believe that only the pure shall see God- and sanctification is that purifying process, occuring here in this world, and if necessary, ending in "purgatory". I am not bringing this up to argue over purgatory, but to mention that we believe God's plan will not be 'stopped' by such things as physical death. Sanctification has REAL meaning for us, we are not just "covered" by Someone else's righteousness. We must be MADE into the image of Christ.

I believe that man's free will is not removed after regeneration. We can continue to grieve the Spirit of God, we can even return to the vomit of our former lives and make a shipwreck of our faith. There is a particular synergy between us and God. God provides another guiding principle within us, the Spirit of God. But it does not override our temptations and desires automatically. Thus, Paul calls this a spiritual "battle" and arms us accordingly in Ephesians. Paul also uses military and other competitive language that strongly suggests that sanctification is not entirely up to God, but also depends upon ourselves, the secondary causes...

But remember that to us, the Church is a sacrament of Christ in the world. Christ chooses to act THROUGH the Church, whether by bringing us to life (baptism), healing us, forgiving our sins, feeding us, and so forth. God touches us through the lives of those of the Body.

We state there is a partnership, we doing good together. He moves my will and desire to do good. I (not Christ) am being made more holy AS I ALLOW Christ to work within me. Know that I can interfere with Christ's work. My own pride, sloth, greed, jealousies, etc (and Paul lists many other vices that SAVED CHRISTIANS continue to have) prevent me from completely emptying myself and allowing Christ to fill me up.

To us, salvation USUALLY means "going to heaven". We GENERALLY do not point to the moment of redemption, but as the moment we enter eternal life in heaven... Thus, many Catholics are confused when speaking about "SO ARE YOU SAVED YET" when confronted by a Bible thumping visitor.

A rabid Catholic sinner "losing their salvation" would mean that they were on the road to hell and have thrown away THEIR INHERITANCE given at Baptism.

This is no different than in the OT. The Jews were always considered God's People, even when they sinned. They were ALL given the promise of the Covenant. However, the wicked Jew was "promised" the "pit", God's reward to those who chose not to follow the Covenant. But this relationship could be re-established (and saved from the pit) if that person turned back to God. I see Catholic confession in a similar manner. We have been all given the promise of eternal life. When we are wicked, we break the Covenantal relationship. Upon our return with sorrow and confession, we are again in a just relationship with God.
Regards

Just a quick restate of the Protestant view. .....
It's done once and we grow in our Christian life from there in a process of sanctification. Those who are saved have no direct effort in that (Sanctification) but to be still, listen and allow Christ to do his work in us.

We both know where our differences are in terms of belief. Purgatory aside.

We believe that man is not made perfectly in the image of Christ while here on earth,ever. Some do better than others perhaps, but it's a mute point to all who are saved. Saved is saved. One must be born again, not again and again and again.

However, there is a relationship with Christ in the Christian life and in the process of Sanctification.

To better this relationship one must yield to Christ who is the head of this relationship, because as you said, one does not loose their free will within the relationship, and not yielding to Christ leads to sin as you mentioned in your scenario.

Obviously we do not believe that one saved Christian is any more or less saved than any other in terms of their "perfection" since none are righteous (period) but that it is Christ Righteousness only that represents them when we face God.

There are degrees of reward in heaven.

So how does one yield to Christ in this relationship with Christ? "Those who are saved have no direct effort in that (Sanctification) but to be still, listen and allow Christ to do his work in us."

Why did Christ establish the church and where does it fit in? The church is the body of Christ in this physical sense. However, it's made up of non-righteous, corruptible men. That's not to say that Christ does not work through the church. he clearly does, but the church is more of a hospital, rather than something between one and God.

It's a place to go and worship God, to be with other believers, to give and revive teaching, but it's not something one has to pass through to get to God, to talk to God, to have a relationship with God.

 

[Eventide]

Another interesting perspective on this is that the Lord Jesus Christ has ALREADY SAVED every last person in Adam, past, present, and future.. because if the wages of sin is death, and all men shall be raised from the dead... then evidently He must have paid for all our sins.. otherwise.. how could men be raised from the dead if Christ didn't die for their sins, for the sin of the world ?

The just and the unjust will be raised from the dead.. from death, it's a simple biblical fact.

Now how could that happen if the penalty of sin was not paid for by the precious shed blood of Jesus Christ ?

There's also what's called a second death... how come ?

 

[Eventide]

I see Catholic confession in a similar manner. We have been all given the promise of eternal life. When we are wicked, we break the Covenantal relationship. Upon our return with sorrow and confession, we are again in a just relationship with God.

Are you suggesting that a person can be saved, then not saved, and then saved again ?

Hebrews teaches us that it is impossible to 'redo' this relationship because we would be crucifying Christ again and putting Him to open shame.

So in that sense, and imo, saved ONCE is the ONLY biblical model.. it's impossible to be saved again.

 

[Adullam]

I see no need for you to apologize - they are/were your understandings and you are presenting them. There is no offense given in such a situation - as long as they are given with due respect. So let's continue with our respect for each other.



This argument seems to be lacking, in my mind.

The problem is that it presupposes that one must CONTINUE to follow God in virtual sinlessness. For any major stumbles would bring out the "doubters" in the 'congregation' who would then doubt a pastor of 30 years was ever saved to begin with because of some sexual advances towards another member's wife...

What are we to attribute those last 30 years of ministry to, the devil????

I think there is a serious issue with the idea of sanctification in the OSAS world, and that is why I brought it up. At what point would we say "he was never saved to begin with"? Are we so ready to condemn, without knowing the mind of God? Doesn't that make OSAS a farce - if one THINKS they were saved and later found out they "weren't"???

In addition, the idea that we are completely covered by Christ's righteousness dispenses of the need for one to BE righteous themselves!!! WHY BOTHER - can one be MORE righteous then Jesus? The Father will only 'see Jesus'. And to state that sanctification is "proof" of justification, that means that any future sin can be the means of undoing the spiritual walk - since now, you have proven you were NEVER saved to begin with!

Luther went too far.



As you no doubt know, Catholics believe that God provides a place for sanctification to continue, in the event that we die before that takes place. We believe that only the pure shall see God - and sanctification is that purifying process, occuring here in this world, and if necessary, ending in "purgatory". I am not bringing this up to argue over purgatory, but to mention that we believe God's plan will not be 'stopped' by such things as physical death. Sanctification has REAL meaning for us, we are not just "covered" by Someone else's righteousness. We must be MADE into the image of Christ.



I believe that man's free will is not removed after regeneration. We can continue to grieve the Spirit of God, we can even return to the vomit of our former lives and make a shipwreck of our faith. There is a particular synergy between us and God. God provides another guiding principle within us, the Spirit of God. But it does not override our temptations and desires automatically. Thus, Paul calls this a spiritual "battle" and arms us accordingly in Ephesians. Paul also uses military and other competitive language that strongly suggests that sanctification is not entirely up to God, but also depends upon ourselves, the secondary causes...



True, when we are actively following the ways of Christ. Each of us know of times in our lives when that was not happening.



Adam also had a new nature, but he failed. This new nature in Christ, the Second Adam, does NOT mean that we cannot falter, as well. The Scriptures make it plainly clear that people CAN walk in the flesh, even after being regenerated and transformed.



That's not what 2 Peter 2:20-22 states. Or Jesus, when He cast out the demons and suggested that the demon would bring his friends and that situation would be even WORSE than the former state. I believe that we are MORE culpable if we know the Gospel and later reject it. This is why Jesus was so critical of the Pharisees, they SHOULD have known better.



You are presenting a false dichotomy... Either I do everything or God does everything. We state there is a partnership, we doing good together. He moves my will and desire to do good. I (not Christ) am being made more holy AS I ALLOW Christ to work within me. Know that I can interfere with Christ's work. My own pride, sloth, greed, jealousies, etc (and Paul lists many other vices that SAVED CHRISTIANS continue to have) prevent me from completely emptying myself and allowing Christ to fill me up.



No one sanctifies themselves, let's clarify that right away, so it is not said again...

Our justification does not sanctify us. Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit sanctify us.



It is sophistry to say "you were never saved to begin with". If someone believes they were saved, and then 10 years later, someone tosses out that line, how can one EVER KNOW that they really ARE saved??? We both agree that we CAN know we are saved PRESENTLY - at least to a moral degree (not absolute certainty).



Oh, trust me, I have given it thought, I deal with it on a monthly basis, I would think, since it is a re-occuring theme here... The arguments presented have not convinced me otherwise.



A definition would be in order.

To us, salvation USUALLY means "going to heaven". We GENERALLY do not point to the moment of redemption, but as the moment we enter eternal life in heaven... Thus, many Catholics are confused when speaking about "SO ARE YOU SAVED YET" when confronted by a Bible thumping visitor.

A rabid Catholic sinner "losing their salvation" would mean that they were on the road to hell and have thrown away THEIR INHERITANCE given at Baptism.

This is no different than in the OT. The Jews were always considered God's People, even when they sinned. They were ALL given the promise of the Covenant. However, the wicked Jew was "promised" the "pit", God's reward to those who chose not to follow the Covenant. But this relationship could be re-established (and saved from the pit) if that person turned back to God. I see Catholic confession in a similar manner. We have been all given the promise of eternal life. When we are wicked, we break the Covenantal relationship. Upon our return with sorrow and confession, we are again in a just relationship with God.



This is going off topic, I believe. But remember that to us, the Church is a sacrament of Christ in the world. Christ chooses to act THROUGH the Church, whether by bringing us to life (baptism), healing us, forgiving our sins, feeding us, and so forth. God touches us through the lives of those of the Body.



Of course, but it is not a matter of what God needs, but what man needs... We NEED to say, "publically", that "I AM SORRY, I HAVE SINNED"... And to hear the words "YOU ARE FORGIVEN". It is a huge difference than going in private and asking God to forgive something.



One must wonder, then, why Christ established a Church to begin with...



That sounds more like a bumper sticker than a theological statement.

That's like me saying "a monkey is a monkey".



If there is no direct effort in anything done regarding our salvation/justification, one must wonder why aren't "all men saved", as God desires. If you remove man from the formula, are we to believe that God randomly chooses whom to save? That doesn't seem in line with what Scriptures teach.

I think many non Catholic Christians are "deathly afraid" of considering the role of man in salvation. However, Scriptures make it clear that man is involved. He cannot do so without God. Read my signature line. There is no reason to fear we are taking away from God -

Man fully alive is God's glory.

it's a long post, so feel free to leave out what you don't want to continue with. It is difficult to go on with multi-subject threads, but I thought it would be nice to answer your concerns.

Regards

Doctrinally I agree with what Joe is putting forth as the "catholic" position. I doubt that very many Catholics are conversant with the doctrines as stated, however.

There is no blanket way of ritualizing truth into a spiritual reality. Like scheduling a group of 8 year olds to come and be "baptized in the Spirit" by the laying on of hands by a cleric called a "bishop" . They call this ritual...confirmation. The fruits show otherwise of course.

I am not a Catholic for the obvious reason that rituals don't work.

I WAS baptized in the Spirit by the will of God much later....in reality.

The way is narrow and very exacting...no mass ritualization can do this. A disciple must be followed closely every day.

So we have a conundrum...Do we make disciples one at a time with rigorous attention to every detail...or do we mass market what a group of clerics have decided upon?

Proper doctrine is one thing...but proper practice quite another. Is it any wonder that Jesus said...Do as they say, but NOT as they do!

 

[francisdesales]

Are you suggesting that a person can be saved, then not saved, and then saved again ?

We view salvation generally as entering heaven. I suppose more properly, we would be just, then not just, then just again, if we were to be baptized, later commit a serious (mortal) sin, and then later repent of that sin. Or spiritually alive, then dead, then alive again. Or "in Christ", not in Christ and "in Christ again...

However, if I was to answer your question based on YOUR definition of "salvation", I would say no, we are not saved/unsaved/saved...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Good post, I like long post.

What I've done is rearranged your words a little, but only to get to the meat, I've taken great care not to take anything out of context, or loose your argument. Rather, I've taken one of my key statements and arranged your beliefs around it a bit.

The heart of my post, is that we are saved once, and as I stated; It's done once and we grow in our Christian life from there in a process of sanctification.

To what end?

What is the non-Catholic Christian view on the point of sanctification IF Christ completely covers us in the eyes of the Father and we are already guaranteed salvation without "any direct effort"???

WHY would man "need" to be sanctified?

I realize you like long posts, but I'll just cut to this question first.

There are degrees of reward in heaven.

Perhaps. How would one differentiate between complete happiness for every "inhabitant"?

Off topic, sorry...

So how does one yield to Christ in this relationship with Christ? "Those who are saved have no direct effort in that (Sanctification) but to be still, listen and allow Christ to do his work in us."

That is a "direct effort", my friend. I do agree with the gist of your statement. I have presented an analogy on white and dark liquid that states something similar - letting Christ change our "color". But there must be some emptying of self - and that is a direct effort of our God-moved will.

Why did Christ establish the church and where does it fit in? The church is the body of Christ in this physical sense. However, it's made up of non-righteous, corruptible men. That's not to say that Christ does not work through the church. he clearly does, but the church is more of a hospital, rather than something between one and God.

You are absolutely correct! The Church is indeed a hospital, and Christ is the Divine Healer... She is the bride of Christ, one that eventually will be presented holy and immaculate.

It's a place to go and worship God, to be with other believers, to give and revive teaching, but it's not something one has to pass through to get to God, to talk to God, to have a relationship with God.

One doesn't have to be able to read the Bible, either. But just the same, our relationship with God is much improved by following the Way presented by Christ Himself, Who continues to guide the Church, as promised.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Doctrinally I agree with what Joe is putting forth as the "catholic" position. I doubt that very many Catholics are conversant with the doctrines as stated, however.

Sadly, that is probably true... The problem is some Catholics do not take their faith as seriously as they should. Do non-Catholic Christians experience that problem some times?

There is no blanket way of ritualizing truth into a spiritual reality. Like scheduling a group of 8 year olds to come and be "baptized in the Spirit" by the laying on of hands by a cleric called a "bishop" . They call this ritual...confirmation. The fruits show otherwise of course.

There is some truth to that, I will not deny that. One would think that an 8 year old would suddenly become holy after being Confirmed. It doesn't work that way, at times. There certainly is a valid argument for waiting for this sacrament, perhaps into adulthood. We do understand, however, that the sacrament is a unique experience of Jesus Christ, and that this IS a spiritual reality, no less than a 30 year old "born again" non Catholic Christian being baptized.

Remember, my friend, it is GOD Who is at work, not the recipient. Often, God plants a seed that only later sprouts into visible effectiveness. An emotional outburst is not proof a spiritual reality...

Proper doctrine is one thing...but proper practice quite another. Is it any wonder that Jesus said...Do as they say, but NOT as they do!

Jesus was speaking of hypocritical actions performed by priests/clergy. He said to listen to them, to include doctrines, didn't He? So shouldn't you start listening? They state that baptism is the presence of God's Spirit bringing birth to an individual - and this is a work of God, not dependent upon the recipient.

Regards

 

[Adullam]

Sadly, that is probably true... The problem is some Catholics do not take their faith as seriously as they should. Do non-Catholic Christians experience that problem some times?



There is some truth to that, I will not deny that. One would think that an 8 year old would suddenly become holy after being Confirmed. It doesn't work that way, at times. There certainly is a valid argument for waiting for this sacrament, perhaps into adulthood. We do understand, however, that the sacrament is a unique experience of Jesus Christ, and that this IS a spiritual reality, no less than a 30 year old "born again" non Catholic Christian being baptized.

Remember, my friend, it is GOD Who is at work, not the recipient. Often, God plants a seed that only later sprouts into visible effectiveness. An emotional outburst is not proof a spiritual reality...



Jesus was speaking of hypocritical actions performed by priests/clergy. He said to listen to them, to include doctrines, didn't He? So shouldn't you start listening? They state that baptism is the presence of God's Spirit bringing birth to an individual - and this is a work of God, not dependent upon the recipient.

Regards

I do listen!!! God works in ways we can't readily discern. Was my confirmation a seed sown that sprouted later? I cannot deny this is possible in my own case. But what of the others?

There are just so many conundrums when it comes to the church...what it is! Can the church be any one of a number of institutions that claim to be the bona fide representation of the church?

Or rather are we confronted or presented with a variety of churches (as per Revelations) each having strong and weak points.

The early church was directly instructed and "instituted" by the apostles (not made into institutions...that came later). After Constantine the waters are muddied to a large extent...taking the small flock of disciples into a mass "conversion" where everyone was now a Christian. Or so it was said.

Are we saved by belonging to a church? Or rather, are we being saved together within the church, each sharing the gift he has received from God!

Blessings Joe!!!