A question for non-Catholic Christians on salvation

[reen12]

Not so surprising, given that this upstart faith reinterpreted the whole concept of what it means to be saved and how the original group’s Messiah was to be understood as well.

I realize that.

Christianity is a solution, looking for a problem to solve.

No ontological sin - a sin in man’s very being - ‘original sin’]
no need for a savior from same.

The God of the parent faith had already granted forgiveness, mercy and eternal life -
to all who would acknowledge Him as the one God, and follow the natural law,
found in the heart of all men.

Personal sin was addressed, by God, in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Come now, let us set things right, says the Lord:
Though your sins be like scarlet, they may become white as snow…Is.1:18

This God of mercy said, in Isaiah

Can a mother forget her infant…? Even should she forget, I will never forget you. See, I have written your name on the palms of My hands. Isaiah 49:14-16

Those who accept Jesus as the God/man will accept, as well, the concept of original sin, from which they seek saving.
I understand the concept, yet share not that belief at all.

Neither does the parent faith, in its dominant thought

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Original_Sin.html

Best,

reen12

 

[reen12]

Not so surprising, given that this upstart faith reinterpreted the whole concept of what it means to be saved…

Christianity teaches that -

Adam’s sin created a rupture between God and man.
That this rupture needed healing ----> atonement [at-one-ment]

To me, the Judaic view is far more credible.

All men and women will sin, in their lifetimes.
And God forgives this personal sin, when one turns back to Him.
*teshuva *- the turning back]

Sometimes I post for those who may be following a given thread,
yet not themselves posting. For all who find the notion of original sin
far too complex to be even remotely evocative of reality,
I note a completely different theological view.

That man is born in innocence, that God loves him, and that
when he sins, he may turn back to God, for forgiveness.

As to salvation:

beingjewish.com/toshuv/salvation.html

A very different view…of God, forgiveness, mercy, and eternal life.

reen12 :tiphat:

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Adam may be an analogy.

The point is that man, once he is responsible for his actions, will choose sinful actions at some points in his life.

This is original sin.

I believe original sin is a necessary component of free will.

I believe that this sinful inclination can be cured by choosing, of our own free will, to submit to God’s grace.

 

[a_mirror_dimly]

Adam may be an analogy.

The point is that man, once he is responsible for his actions, will choose sinful actions at some points in his life.

This is original sin.

I believe original sin is a necessary component of free will.

I believe that this sinful inclination can be cured by choosing, of our own free will, to submit to God’s grace.

Hm, that’s not what original sin means, in the Catholic Church or elsewhere. Here’s the Catholic Church’s teaching on original sin:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm#III

Original sin isn’t the idea that everyone will commit a personal sin at some point in their lives, it’s the state of separation from God into which we are all born as a result of the fall.

 

[reen12]

Adam may be an analogy.

The point is that man, once he is responsible for his actions, will choose sinful actions at some points in his life.

This is original sin.

I believe original sin is a necessary component of free will.

I believe that this sinful inclination can be cured by choosing, of our own free will, to submit to God’s grace.

Hello, CHESTERTONRULES,

I understand the Christian position, vis a vis original sin and
the need for salvation.

Yet I hold that the Judaic view is far more cogent - in terms of
man’s relationship with God - and on the nature of salvation.

Judaism simply does not share the same notion, in re salvation,
as do Christians.

I think their view is consonant with both the makeup of a human
being, and the innocence of man at birth.

The Judaic yetzers are pertinent here:

jewfaq.org/human.htm

reen

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Hello, CHESTERTONRULES,

I understand the Christian position, vis a vis original sin and
the need for salvation.

Yet I hold that the Judaic view is far more cogent - in terms of
man’s relationship with God - and on the nature of salvation.

Judaism simply does not share the same notion, in re salvation,
as do Christians.

I think their view is consonant with both the makeup of a human
being, and the innocence of man at birth.

The Judaic yetzers are pertinent here:

jewfaq.org/human.htm

reen

I don’t see that as being much different than the Christian view, other than terminology.

Do you agree that if man has free will then he will sometimes fall short of God’s ideal?

Assuming you do, do you think it is plausible that God needs us to be purfied at some point before joining him in eternity?

 

[reen12]

Judaism’s view of the nature of salvation is not at all that of
Christianity.

jewfaq.org/salvatn.htm

No original sin is consonant - for example - with the
abolition of those penal laws, of centuries past,
which jailed not only the debtor father, but the whole family.

This was considered societal moral progress.

Is man, then, more merciful than God is?

Which faith does not teach that man is born in sin -
‘inheriting’ the sin of Adam?

quote: reen12, from another thread

And BTW, the notion of original sin was such that a
Father of the Church, Augustine, speculated - at one point -
that an infant, who dies without baptism - would be subject to
‘the positive miseries of the damned’

Forget that Augustine had this repugnant ‘thought.’
The fact is, that it is the Christian doctrine of original sin
that made such thought possible - in terms speculative.
This, alone, testifies to the flawed nature of such a doctrine -
original sin. No original sin, no ‘need’ for a savior from same.
The God of Israel had already granted mercy, forgiveness
and life eternal, to all people.

Come now, let us set things right, says the Lord: Though your sins be like scarlet, they may become white as snow…Is.1:18

That 2 billion human beings wish to accept the notion of
original sin, seeking salvation from same, I can understand.
Yet I do not share their belief.

reen

 

[Scientiphic]

Firstly, non-catholic christians believe they are saved by FAITH. Not by any indulgences or purgatory that catholics believe in etc.

In view of that…the Bible states.1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the Christian husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

Its stated very clearly that the children are made clean because of the faith of even just one of the spouse. God sends His blessings to His people and their children.

So, there’s absolutely no doubt that God will save these infants because of the faith of the parent(s).

 

[reen12]

Firstly, non-catholic christians believe they are saved by FAITH. Not by any indulgences or purgatory that catholics believe in etc.

In view of that…the Bible states.1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the Christian husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

Its stated very clearly that the children are made clean because of the faith of even just one of the spouse. God sends His blessings to His people and their children.

So, there’s absolutely no doubt that God will save these infants because of the faith of the parent(s).

Hi, Scientiphic. Welcome to CAF. http://bestsmileys.com/waving/5.gif I’m glad that you’re here.

quote: Scientiphic

Firstly, non-catholic christians believe they are saved by FAITH. Not by any indulgences or purgatory that catholics believe in etc.

I’ll tell you something, Scientiphic. Were I able to, once again,
accept the notion of original sin, I would surely agree with
the view that Jesus has done the work of salvation, and
that obedience to his teachings and commands were
done out of love of him - the outward expressions of inner peace,
resting in the knowledge that he has accomplished man’s salvation.

That he is our Righeouness, and he is our justification.

Thank you for sharing your thought, Scientiphic.
And once again, welcome.

reen12

 

[Reformed]

Though personally, I don’t buy the “age of accountability” argument, which is essentially what you affirmed, I didn’t say I saw a problem. Just wanting to be sure what was being said, before posting.

Age of accountabilty doesn’t stand the test of Holy Scripture. What did God command of the Israelites, to destroy man, women, and children of pagan nations as divine judgement. In addition, the judgement of the flood destroyed men, women, and children too. The infants are sinners according to Scripture. God does save elect infants by the blood of Christ. Who knows, maybe all infants who die in infancy are elect infants? The Scriptures seem to reveal that there is a division even at infancy.

Psalm 22:10
On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother’s womb you have been my God.

Psalm 58:3
The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

So, reen12, do you hold that the Hebraic scriptures are correct in their understanding and presentation of God? Because if so, then you have to make sense of how they also justify some of the genocides the Israelites participated in when “conquering” the promised land as being God-directed actions. And if you don’t hold to that, then don’t you hold it is possible that subsequent interpretations and representations of God might not only be different from the original, but also possibly superior?

 

[Contarini]

Would someone please address the following, for me,
in terms of the theology of their own Christian denomination?

Catholicism holds that it cannot state with *certainty *that
the souls of infants who die without Baptism are received
into heaven…i.e., the beatific vision.
It “entrusts” these little people to the “mercy of God.”

What do other Christian denominations hold, with reference
to the eternal destiny of these infants?

As an Anglican, I would basically agree with this. We have “covenanted means of grace,” chief among which is baptism. That does not mean that people who are unbaptized are damned. It simply means that the divinely ordained way of salvation includes the sacraments.

The salvation of all of us is “entrusted to the mercy of God.” That’s the only way anyone is saved. But God has mercifully given us covenantal means of grace to bring us to salvation. Those who lack those means of grace are entrusted to the *uncovenanted *mercy of the same God whose mercy gave us the covenant in the first place!

Edwin

 

[Reformed]

As an Anglican, I would basically agree with this. We have “covenanted means of grace,” chief among which is baptism. That does not mean that people who are unbaptized are damned. It simply means that the divinely ordained way of salvation includes the sacraments.

The salvation of all of us is “entrusted to the mercy of God.” That’s the only way anyone is saved. But God has mercifully given us covenantal means of grace to bring us to salvation. Those who lack those means of grace are entrusted to the *uncovenanted *mercy of the same God whose mercy gave us the covenant in the first place!

Edwin

As I did a quick look at the 39 Articles of Faith, it appears Anglicans embrace justification by faith through imputation. However, some Catholic stated that Anglicans embrace infant baptismal regeneration. For the record, what are the official positions on these issues. I guess Lutherans hold to both positions, but I’m not sure how.

 

[reen12]

And if you don’t hold to that, then don’t you hold it is possible that subsequent interpretations and representations of God might not only be different from the original, but also possibly superior?

Hello, Grace Seeker,

A given theology either reflects theological reality, or it does not.

Definition? Truth is that which conforms with reality.

For those willing to accept, as reality, the doctrine of original sin
and the teaching which states that a rupture existed, in the life of man with God,
through the sin of Adam - which is now said to be inherited, by each born into this world - Christian doctrine will make sense.
And to over 2 billion human beings, it does make sense.

The parent faith holds no such teaching. Salvation has an
entirely different meaning, than that held by the Christian faith.

jewfaq.org/salvatn.htm

As I said earlier:

quote: reen12

…I hold that the Judaic view is far more cogent - in terms of
man’s relationship with God - and on the nature of salvation.

…I think their view is consonant with both the makeup of a human
being, and the innocence of man at birth.

That men and women will sin in their lifetimes is readily apparent, to even the casual observer.

Yet if one makes the turn back to God, teshuva] and asks forgiveness, God forgives.

Come now, let us set things right, says the Lord:
Though your sins be like scarlet, they may become white as snow…Is.1:18

Christianity is a solution in search of a problem.

Best,

reen12 :tiphat:

 

[allischalmers]

Would someone please address the following, for me,
in terms of the theology of their own Christian denomination?

Catholicism holds that it cannot state with *certainty *that
the souls of infants who die without Baptism are received
into heaven…i.e., the beatific vision.
It “entrusts” these little people to the “mercy of God.”

What do other Christian denominations hold, with reference
to the eternal destiny of these infants?
Thanks for any (name removed by moderator)ut.

reen12*

It just happens that yesterday I attended a memorial service for a beautiful five day old baby girl. Very sad indeed. Our Pastor did a very good job of showing that the Bible declares that infants go to heaven. There is no requirement for them to be baptized

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Hello, Grace Seeker,

A given theology either reflects theological reality, or it does not.

Definition? Truth is that which conforms with reality.

The parent faith holds no such teaching. Salvation has an
entirely different meaning, than that held by the Christian faith.

All of this may be true, but you didn’t answer my question.

The parent faith may hold to a different understanding of salvation, but if the parent faith is wrong, if it does not reflect theological reality, then by your own definition it would not be true. Just because Judaism came first, I don’t find that reason enough to believe that it necessarily has a corner on the truth any more than the Christianity came second would be evidence of it. The chronology of their appearance would hardly seem to be the testing ground for which is closer to the truth.

 

[With_Questions]

Would someone please address the following, for me,
in terms of the theology of their own Christian denomination?

Catholicism holds that it cannot state with *certainty *that
the souls of infants who die without Baptism are received
into heaven…i.e., the beatific vision.
It “entrusts” these little people to the “mercy of God.”

What do other Christian denominations hold, with reference
to the eternal destiny of these infants?
Thanks for any (name removed by moderator)ut.

reen12*
That is an excellent question.

Most of the churches that I have been involved in believe in the “Age of Accountability”. That is beneath some unknown point of development you get a pass.

One big problem I can see with this right off the bat is the cutoff point problem. Some child one day under this cutoff point gets a pass while some child right one day above this cutoff point goes to hell for eternity. That doesn’t seem right.

However, anything else that I have heard has logical problems and inconsistencies. Maybe someday I will hear something I really like, but until then.

Actually the Catholic position of not really being sure but trusting in the mercy of God is as good as anything else that i have heard. I sort of like “I don’t know” instead of making up BS.

So I

 

[reen12]

As an Anglican, I would basically agree with this. We have “covenanted means of grace,” chief among which is baptism. That does not mean that people who are unbaptized are damned. It simply means that the divinely ordained way of salvation includes the sacraments.

The salvation of all of us is “entrusted to the mercy of God.” That’s the only way anyone is saved. But God has mercifully given us covenantal means of grace to bring us to salvation. Those who lack those means of grace are entrusted to the *uncovenanted *mercy of the same God whose mercy gave us the covenant in the first place!

Edwin

Beautifully stated, Contarini. Thank you for your thoughts.

I found Catholic doctrine to be exquisite, in terms philosophic.
Perfectly exquisite. [Shake hands with Aristotle, and one is
good to go with Aquinas.]

Roman Catholic theology is gorgeous, as a thought system,
and as an expression of a given view of theological reality.

Posit it’s premises as true, and the theological statements, that
follow, are an artwork of applied intellect.

Best,

reen

 

[reen12]

It just happens that yesterday I attended a memorial service for a beautiful five day old baby girl. Very sad indeed. Our Pastor did a very good job of showing that the Bible declares that infants go to heaven. There is no requirement for them to be baptized

I thank God for your pastor.

reen12

 

[reen12]

All of this may be true, but you didn’t answer my question.

The parent faith may hold to a different understanding of salvation, but if the parent faith is wrong, if it does not reflect theological reality, then by your own definition it would not be true. Just because Judaism came first, I don’t find that reason enough to believe that it necessarily has a corner on the truth any more than the Christianity came second would be evidence of it. The chronology of their appearance would hardly seem to be the testing ground for which is closer to the truth.

I do understand what you are saying, Grace Seeker.

First…in order of time - has no direct relation to theological truth, of logical nescessity.

Truth being that which comforms with [theological] reality, in this instance.

---

This is where faith enters.

To those human beings - for whom Jesus is held to be
savior, from ontological sin and personal sin - the doctrines of
Christianity make sense. These doctrines are said to be
based upon a further revelation of Godhead.

quote: Grace Seeker

All of this may be true, but you didn’t answer my question.

The parent faith may hold to a different understanding of salvation, but if the parent faith is wrong, if it does not reflect theological reality, then by your own definition it would not be true.

Surely agree. Earlier does not, of logical necessity = true.

quote: Grace Seeker

…but if the parent faith is wrong…

Again, this is where faith enters.

Accept the notion of original sin, and the new faith is held
to be the fulfillment of the earlier faith. I do understand this.

---

The definiton of salvation is now based upon the removal of
original sin and the needed atonement for personal sin.

The rupture, said to exist - in the relationship between God and man,
due to the sin of Adam - is now said to be healed…due to the salvific act of Jesus,
who made atonement. [at-one-ment.]

---

It occured to me, today, that the two words - rupture and rapture -
are related, for some Christians.

Heal the rupture, and the rapture follows, one day.

reen12