THE FORMULA FOR SALVATION

[Dorothy Mae]

Well then you agree more with Catholicism and their understanding of justification.

Why do you say that? I read what Mungo wrote and I do not agree at all and said so.

I actually began to understand this better when a sharp distinction was made between Justification and Sanctification.

I see no difference in the scripture actually.

However, there are stages. You'll agree, I think:

First a person is not saved.
At some point that person becomes aware of God and is saved.
This is justification.

Well, I hope you mean more than simply "being aware of God" means they are saved. That actually second point has many aspects and is different for different people.

After justification, that person continues their life and works for the Lord in all he does.

No, this is not what I see. I am perhaps older than you and I have seen those justified do what is actually not only sin but against the law, every thing except murder. I can also supply the names of christians who have been exposed as definitely NOT doing the works for the Lord is all they do. The more recent is Ravi.

This is sanctification.

It's a normal progression.
I don't see any problem with the concept.

Except it is not happening in way too many people so what is the problem?

Romans 3:24
Titus 3:7

1 Thess 4:3
Hebrews 12:14

You can quote to me scriptures where this is supposed to be happening and I can get out scriptures where it did not. Take A and S in Acts. Saved and justified and lied to the HS and dropped dead. And there are all those Paul mentions as doing hard to the church and having shipwrecked their faith. It is a long list.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

What name did I call you when you tried to correct me?

And why did you make it a general accusation instead of letting me know the nature of my error?

Look at the mail you wrote me and see how you would like to be called those names.

So, why haven't you pointed out my error?

Because your response is not a biblical one.

Is it not because there is none?

No, that you think that you have no sin already tells me that you are NOT open to anyone else showing you. You ought to know your own failings. That you see none is telling.

It seems that faith can be mistaken by the judgmental to be spiritual pride.

No, the difference is night and day. But here you have a name that you are using unrighteously. So it did not take long before you start calling others names. It is as I said and I am surprised that you so quickly supplied an example. Anyone who thinks your "faith" is not faith is judgmental.....a name.

 

[GodsGrace]

Why do you say that? I read what Mungo wrote and I do not agree at all and said so.

I see no difference in the scripture actually.

Don't you believe that at salvation, God declares the sinner made righteous before God?
IOW, at that point he is right with God.

Well, I hope you mean more than simply "being aware of God" means they are saved. That actually second point has many aspects and is different for different people.

It starts with becoming aware of God.
Then believing Him.
Accepting His laws.

No, this is not what I see. I am perhaps older than you and I have seen those justified do what is actually not only sin but against the law, every thing except murder. I can also supply the names of christians who have been exposed as definitely NOT doing the works for the Lord is all they do. The more recent is Ravi.

I never said those that are justified never sin.
It just means they are a child of God.
Personally, I don't believe sin ever ends in this world.
John Wesley thought it did, but even the holiness churches (some at least) are letting go of this idea.
Which was never taught biblically BTW.

Except it is not happening in way too many people so what is the problem?

What is the problem.
The problem is that we retain free will even after salvation.
The Holy Spirit lets us know we may be sinning, but it's our choice as to whether or not we wish to obey Him.

You can quote to me scriptures where this is supposed to be happening and I can get out scriptures where it did not. Take A and S in Acts. Saved and justified and lied to the HS and dropped dead. And there are all those Paul mentions as doing hard to the church and having shipwrecked their faith. It is a long list.

Answered above and agreed upon.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Don't you believe that at salvation, God declares the sinner made righteous before God?
IOW, at that point he is right with God.

You accused me of believing what Catholics believe. Can you please be specific what you think that is?

It starts with becoming aware of God.
Then believing Him.
Accepting His laws.

Those are not at all the same thing. The demons are aware of God. Muslims and Hindus are aware of God. They believe HE is there. There are even Christians who believe He is there but do not accept his laws, just his salvation from hell.

I never said those that are justified never sin.
It just means they are a child of God.
Personally, I don't believe sin ever ends in this world.
John Wesley thought it did, but even the holiness churches (some at least) are letting go of this idea.
Which was never taught biblically BTW.

OK. Maybe I am a bit sensitive from those naming scriptures and claiming it is true of Christians. My apologies.

What is the problem.
The problem is that we retain free will even after salvation.
The Holy Spirit lets us know we may be sinning, but it's our choice as to whether or not we wish to obey Him.

I agree. The Holy Spirit try to let us know our sin but sometimes we have to ask if we are sinning as well. It is our choice to respond or quench the Holy Spirit.

Answered above and agreed upon.

Very nice.

 

[GodsGrace]

You accused me of believing what Catholics believe. Can you please be specific what you think that is?

Accused?
Do you think everything Catholics believe is heretical?

We were discussing Justification and Sanctification.
I'm sure it's a very minor point and I can't go back and find the post. If YOU can, I'll be happy to reply.
I think I said that you believe in on-going justification, as Catholics do.
Protestants believe it too...but it's called Sanctification.

Since, as I've determined, you do not accept this teaching at all from the biblical writers, I'd say we should end this conversation.

Those are not at all the same thing. The demons are aware of God. Muslims and Hindus are aware of God. They believe HE is there. There are even Christians who believe He is there but do not accept his laws, just his salvation from hell.

You want I should go into a theological tirade of how salvation is accomplished?


I think we know how.

OK. Maybe I am a bit sensitive from those naming scriptures and claiming it is true of Christians. My apologies.

I agree. The Holy Spirit try to let us know our sin but sometimes we have to ask if we are sinning as well. It is our choice to respond or quench the Holy Spirit.

Very nice.

Amen.

 

[Mungo]

The vast majority of the teachings of Catholicism are man made.

No they are not.

 

[Mungo]

Did I say the decrees of Trent have been revoked??
The entirety of the decrees have not been revoked....
but some changes have been made.

Well, you said:

First, I don't believe we go by the Council of Trent anymore.

Which I took to mean they had been revoked.

I think I'll start that thread at some point.
Some books were prohibited.
Protestants were believed to be heretical, this is no longer true.
To be continued....

Starting a thread sounds a good idea to me. Let me know when you do it.

We agree on this. I've said from the beginning that both faith and salvation are gifts from God.
You say we have to RECEIVE that gift. Agreed.
Responding merits the receiving of that gift. Yes, this is what I believe to be true in scripture.
But it's you who says that it does not merit justification.
Then what does??

If the response to God is NO, the person cannot be saved.
If the response to God is YES, then the person receives salvation (or at least initial salvation).

John 3:16 Whosoever believeth in HIM shall not perish.
Believing causes meriting salvation.
Faith is a gift, and salvation is a gift.
I guess we can say that we merit that gift.

Our works will not save us.
UNLESS they come with faith.

CCC 1259:
1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

Yes, I neglected to post the above.
Someone is saved by believing even if they have not been baptized, if they DESIRE to be baptized.
Agreed.

This was my point. Baptism is necessary for salvation, but one can be saved even if not baptized under the right conditions.

The quote I gave from the Catechism suggests that the gift comes befdore3 anything else. So man cannot merit faith.
As Trent, Session 6 chapter V says:
The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight.
Note the pars I have emboldened.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Accused?
Do you think everything Catholics believe is heretical?

Where does that come from? Because I said “accused?” Why is that word negative for you? I haven’t addressed what I think about catholics.

We were discussing Justification and Sanctification.
I'm sure it's a very minor point and I can't go back and find the post. If YOU can, I'll be happy to reply.
I think I said that you believe in on-going justification, as Catholics do.
Protestants believe it too...but it's called Sanctification.

I never said any such thing. You’re mixing me up with someone else. I don’t believe that and I don’t divide walking with God into stages. How clinical!

Since, as I've determined, you do not accept this teaching at all from the biblical writers, I'd say we should end this conversation.

I bet you can find no scripture that divides christianity into stages as you describe. There is forgiveness of sins and there’s walking with God. I don’t see any stages of the believer described, are they there?

You want I should go into a theological tirade of how salvation is accomplished?

Where does this question come from? Oh man do you not understand me at all.

I think we know how.


Amen.

Well, I assumed we did.

 

[heartwashed]

Look at the mail you wrote me and see how you would like to be called those names.

What mail? What names?

No, that you think that you have no sin

Not true.

I believe that sin within me is rendered dead (Romans 6:6, Galatians 5:24, Romans 7:8) so that it no longer has any say over my behaviour (Romans 6:14, Romans 8:12, kjv, NLT). Not that I am without sin. That would be in violation of 1 John 1:8. While such a thing is possible if you consider Job 9:21 and put it into play (also Philippians 2:12-15 and 1 Corinthians 4:4).

Anyone who thinks your "faith" is not faith is judgmental.....a name.

Yes, a name...a word that accurately describes you.

If you don't want to be judged (i.e. labled with a name), then don't judge.

 

[GodsGrace]

Well, you said:

Which I took to mean they had been revoked.

Sorry. What I meant was that we do not use the Council of Trent for teaching...we use the CCC, which is the official teaching of the CC.

Of course much of Trent is still valid and there is no problem if we refer to Trent instead of the CCC unless there has been a change in teaching.

The quote I gave from the Catechism suggests that the gift comes befdore3 anything else. So man cannot merit faith.
As Trent, Session 6 chapter V says:
The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight.
Note the pars I have emboldened.

The above is just saying that our own works do not save us.
There is no merit existing on our part before our salvation.
We can do NOTHING to merit salvation...it is a gift of God, as is faith.

However, we become disposed through God's grace to become converted, and this by freely co-operating
with that said grace. We know this as synergism and with which most Christians agree, except, of course, Calvinists who believe in monergism. (God acts totally on His own. The person has no part in his salvation.)

Please note what I've underlined.
"Neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives God's inspiration...

I stress here prevenient grace so as not to confuse this discussion with any belief of John Calvin.

 

[GodsGrace]

Where does that come from? Because I said “accused?” Why is that word negative for you? I haven’t addressed what I think about catholics.

You said I accused you of believing something Catholics believe.

The word accuse is negative for everyone - not just for me.

Definition of accuse​

transitive verb
1: to charge with a fault or offense : BLAME He accused her of being disloyal.
2: to charge with an offense judicially or by a public processHe was accused of murder.

I never said any such thing. You’re mixing me up with someone else. I don’t believe that and I don’t divide walking with God into stages. How clinical!

I bet you can find no scripture that divides christianity into stages as you describe. There is forgiveness of sins and there’s walking with God. I don’t see any stages of the believer described, are they there?

Forgiveness of sin ---- stage 1
Walking with God ---- stage 2

I'm sorry if you don't see it, but there are 2 stages, I provided scripture and I just will not dwell on disagreements.

Where does this question come from? Oh man do you not understand me at all.

That's fine. You're still a sister in Christ.

You asked me how salvation comes about...
I gave my reply...
You didn't like it.

It's OK.

Well, I assumed we did.

Amen.

 

[GodsGrace]

I'm not aware that the decrees of Council of Trent has been revoked



I think it is saying two things:

1. Although we say we are justified by faith, that is because faith is the starting point rather than instrumental cause of justification. The actual instrumental cause is baptism.

2. We are justified freely, (i.e. gratuitously - by grace) because neither faith or works merits that grace.

Can't remember if I've replied to no. 2

I just cannot remember any teacher of Catholicism that I know who believes or implies that last sentence.

Normally I dislike arguing, but I think this is important.

If our faith does not save us and baptism saves us....then CCC 1259 is of no value.

Can you post any verse that would state what you're saying?

This comes to mind:
HE WHO BELIEVES AND IS BAPTIZED IS SAVED...
HE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE IS DAMNED.
Mark 16:16

Also, the following comes from the Catholic Encyclopedia under FAITH...

Definition of faith​

The foregoing analyses will enable us to define an act of Divine supernatural faith as "the act of the intellect assenting to a Divine truth owing to the movement of the will, which is itself moved by the grace of God" (St. Thomas, II-II, Q. iv, a. 2). And just as the light of faith is a gift supernaturally bestowed upon the understanding, so also this Divine grace moving the will is, as its name implies, an equally supernatural and an absolutely gratuitous gift. Neither gift is due to previous study neither of them can be acquired by human efforts, but "Ask and ye shall receive."

From all that has been said two most important corollaries follow:

• That temptations against faith are natural and inevitable and are in no sense contrary to faith, "since", says St. Thomas, "the assent of the intellect in faith is due to the will, and since the object to which the intellect thus assents is not its own proper object — for that is actual vision of an intelligible object — it follows that the intellect's attitude towards that object is not one of tranquillity, on the contrary it thinks and inquires about those things it believes, all the while that it assents to them unhesitatingly; for as far as it itself is concerned the intellect is not satisfied" (De Ver., xiv, 1).
• (b) It also follows from the above that an act of supernatural faith is meritorious, since it proceeds from the will moved by Divine grace or charity, and thus has all the essential constituents of a meritorious act (cf. II-II, Q. ii, a. 9). This enables us to understand St. James's words when he says, "The devils also believe and tremble" (ii, 19) . "It is not willingly that they assent", says St. Thomas, "but they are compelled thereto by the evidence of those signs which prove that what believers assent to is true, though even those proofs do not make the truths of faith so evident as to afford what is termed vision of them" (De Ver., xiv 9, ad 4); nor is their faith Divine, but merely philosophical and natural. Some may fancy the foregoing analyses superfluous, and may think that they savour too much of Scholasticism. But if anyone will be at the pains to compare the teaching of the Fathers, of the Scholastics, and of the divines of the Anglican Church in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, with that of the non-Catholic theologians of today, he will find that the Scholastics merely put into shape what the Fathers taught, and that the great English divines owe their solidity and genuine worth to their vast patristic knowledge and their strictly logical training.

source: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm


Please see b...
Faith is meritorious.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You said I accused you of believing something Catholics believe.

The word accuse is negative for everyone - not just for me.

Definition of accuse​

transitive verb
1: to charge with a fault or offense : BLAME He accused her of being disloyal.
2: to charge with an offense judicially or by a public processHe was accused of murder.

Ok I see what you mean. I have never believed the catholic theology Mungo expressed that said I had agreed with.

Forgiveness of sin ---- stage 1
Walking with God ---- stage 2

I'm sorry if you don't see it, but there are 2 stages, I provided scripture and I just will not dwell on disagreements.

Ok, the first is justification that precedes salvation and the second the relationship that can follow.

Nice wording and I agree. I did say that beyond the initial encounter, which you nicely describe as forgiveness of sin, there is walking with God, a phrase I actually used.

That's fine. You're still a sister in Christ.

You asked me how salvation comes about...
I gave my reply...
You didn't like it.

I think we weren’t communicating because I don’t recall that.

It's OK.

Amen.

Ok. Amen

 

[GodsGrace]

Ok I see what you mean. I have never believed the catholic theology Mungo expressed that said I had agreed with.

Ok, the first is justification that precedes salvation and the second the relationship that can follow.

Nice wording and I agree. I did say that beyond the initial encounter, which you nicely describe as forgiveness of sin, there is walking with God, a phrase I actually used.

I think we weren’t communicating because I don’t recall that.

Ok. Amen

I think we basically agree on what we've communicated so far.

I think that sometimes it's the WORDING we use that may be different, even though the idea is there.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I think we basically agree on what we've communicated so far.

I think that sometimes it's the WORDING we use that may be different, even though the idea is there.

That’s why we dialogue. It’s easy to misunderstand. It’s been a pleasure exchanging with you.

I’ve noticed in other conversations that not only words but motives can easily be misconstrued. Why someone said something, besides the usual desire to express thoughts for consideration, is sometimes twisted into nefarious motives and this happens all too easily here.

 

[GodsGrace]

That’s why we dialogue. It’s easy to misunderstand. It’s been a pleasure exchanging with you.

I’ve noticed in other conversations that not only words but motives can easily be misconstrued. Why someone said something, besides the usual desire to express thoughts for consideration, is sometimes twisted into nefarious motives and this happens all too easily here.

I think it's because we can't see each other.
Bit it's all good if we can arrive at some conclusion....

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I think it's because we can't see each other.
Bit it's all good if we can arrive at some conclusion....

I agree whole heartedly!! We cannot see each other. We cannot downshift into asking about the cares of each other’s lives. We can’t share a song or a coffee or a real laughing together. We only have words…very limiting.

 

[eddif]

You will get different steps for monergism (Calvinists) vs synergism (Arminianism). This is my understanding of the steps for Monergism:

1. God predestines all who will be saved.
2. God elects them to salvation. One Monergist engaged in evangelism told me he was seeking to find the elect.
3. By irresistible grace, such Christians are certain of salvation.
4. They are drawn to Jesus by the preaching of the Gospel, but they are already saved.

For Synergism:

1. God elects people to salvation.
2. The Gospel is preached to them.
3. They are drawn to Him by grace through faith.
4. They are eternally secure as long as they persevere in their faith.

That's a starter of a response from me.

Oz

Help OzSpen

Your expertise is needed here. You may chose not to post here.

I am somewhat lost in Catholic Dogma and to Preterism. Not to even mention the book of Thomas
Being used as authority.

If you would kind of do a peaceful drive by, I would appreciate it.

I am getting some sense of the correct use of works of the Law.

I would appreciate a PM if you prefer.

Thanks
eddif

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering,

You will get different steps for monergism (Calvinists) vs synergism (Arminianism). This is my understanding of the steps for Monergism:

1. God predestines all who will be saved.
2. God elects them to salvation. One Monergist engaged in evangelism told me he was seeking to find the elect.
3. By irresistible grace, such Christians are certain of salvation.
4. They are drawn to Jesus by the preaching of the Gospel, but they are already saved.

For Synergism:

1. God elects people to salvation.
2. The Gospel is preached to them.
3. They are drawn to Him by grace through faith.
4. They are eternally secure as long as they persevere in their faith.

That's a starter of a response from me.

Oz

Been away Oz.
Owe you a pm too.

This is also for @ediff


Here's a very simple explanation for the two expressions; which are not found in the bible.

MONERGISM stands for mono,,,one.
God does everything in the salvation process for each individual He chooses to save. This is calvinism.

SYNERGISM stands for syn...together.
Man cooperates in his salvation process.


You always give Aminianism as the opposite.
Arminian was calvinist in many ways so I've never agreed that it is the opposite. How about using the word PROVISIONIST as the opposite of CALVINISM? God provides for us.

 

[GodsGrace]

Help OzSpen

Your expertise is needed here. You may chose not to post here.

I am somewhat lost in Catholic Dogma and to Preterism. Not to even mention the book of Thomas
Being used as authority.

If you would kind of do a peaceful drive by, I would appreciate it.

I am getting some sense of the correct use of works of the Law.

I would appreciate a PM if you prefer.

Thanks
eddif

Oz will not be able to help you with Catholic doctrine/dogma.

You can refer to me, Mungo
Niblo or Walpole for help with questions.

I don't know about preterism and Oz can help with that. Also, I don't know anyone who uses the Book of Thomas as authoritative.