[/quote:5bead]thessalonian said:mondar said:Yet you are blurring distinctions. You say that salvation is by grace, but I think you know well that protestants believe is "sola gratia."
I never said they didn't. There is a difference in the view of what grace is however and the doctrine of irresistable grace is a false one.
[quote:5bead]
Sigh, Thess, your all over the place. Do you bring this up so that you can change the focus of our discussion? The doctrines of sola gratia and irrestable grace are two distinct doctrines. I believe we have a thread on irrestable grace. Look in "free will."
Thank you for not bringing up the sinners prayer... : More misunderstandings might occur when I agree that there can be a difference between the sinners prayer and faith. It is meaningless to me how many times a person has walked the sawdust trail.thessalonian said:I never said it was merely by grace. In him we live and move and have our being. The very fact that we walk and breathe is by natural grace and the sun shines on the good and the bad and so all recieve his grace. Nature cries out to the glory of God and all recieve his grace. Any who come to faith and any who do good and persevere in faith is SOLEY by his grace.
The parents take their kid in faith to Church to be baptized. The child is not saved by the actions of the parent. It is the Holy Spirit recieved by the child that cleanses it of sin. Not what the parents have done. Your hyperworks theology is a distortion that can be used with regard to statements of faith and sinners prayers saving people too. I won't go there.
Concerning your statement that salvation is "SOLEY by his grace..." I would firmly agree. As a matter of fact, that is the protestant doctrine of sola gratia. There is no work we can do to bring Gods grace. That includes walking the saw dust trail, baptism, or any other action on the part of man, or the part of mans parents. If baptism is added to the requirements of Christs death, then salvation is not by grace alone (sola gratia).
thessalonian said:You are right that our definitions are somewhat different. But the difference is not as you say. We see justification as forgiveness of all temporal and eternal punishment and effects of sin. Christ justified us and so all aspects of justification need his grace. Sanctification only deals with the temporal effects of sin on the soul.
Anyone who has had a little math and set theory can understand when we say that sanctification is a subset of justification. The two cannot be separated as mondar wants to do because Christ's death on the cross applies to the total package of sin and justifies not only the sin but cleanses our souls of the effects of sin (which is sanctification, a subset of justification). Mondar can fool people who don't understand Catholic theology but he can't fool me or anyone who has done a little study. He presents an air of knowing about Catholic theology but only knows enough to be dangerous and to confuse those who don't know themselves. He has shown time and time again he does not know what he is talking about regarding Catholic teaching and distorts with malice.
Wow, I am really the devil incarnate, LOL. Well, is it OK if this malicious person who is trying to "fool" the unwitting person who does not know Roman dogma continues to talk about justification?
I always find Roman answers to be curious. There must always be included these personal attacks against the other person. I suspose it is all in the service of mother Rome, and so therefore can be justified (excuse pun).
In any case, one of the differences in the definations of justification is with regard to this. Is justification an act of God, or is it a process. Thess, the problem is that there is not really one single defination for the term justify. The term must be interpreted in its context. It would take a lot of space to demonstrate this. I have to go do a few chores for now. Be back later.