A repentant heart during mass, at the foot of the cross, catholic vs. protestant views....

[Heartfelt]

I am around both Catholics and Protestants in equal measure. What I find, is that Catholics and Protestants BOTH seem to agree, that they need to ‘come to the cross’, and many times I hear Protestants say …"I am nailing this sin to the cross’ and "Take it to the cross of Christ’ and yet…if Protestants don’t believe Christ is still on the cross, how are they nailing the sins on the cross?
So here is what I’m saying. Would it be correct in assuming that Catholics during Mass are believing they are at the foot of the cross, through all time, thus being able to repent and pray and have a broken and contrite heart in front of the cross, nailing, so to speak, their sins onto the cross that exists throughout time, until when He comes back .
Protestants, believe they confess directly to Christ as High Priest and are forgiven when they ask in a repentant heart , a broken and contrite heart. Yet, if they believe like it is true, that Christ died once for our sins, than when they ask for forgiveness with a repentant heart, that means they are at the foot of the cross, because they are by nature of asking for forgiveness, at the moment Christ died on the cross for all their sins, right? This is what Catholics believe is the heart of the Mass, that we are proclaiming his death until he comes again, right? So, wouldn’t it make sense then, that Christ on the cross is present throughout all time, because He wants a broken and contrite heart and a humble heart, and that He knows us through time, enough to know, we are going to be with him on the cross to ask and participate in his death together through time because we believe he died on the cross to take our sin away. We become active participants in his death, like it says, we become dead in Christ so we can rise wtih Him. Right? . If Christ didn’t function as the lamb, and ONLY as high priest, than we wouldn’t need to come to him at all with any repentance because we would assume we were completely pure. Is this a correct assumption? Will someone clarify this for me?

I feel like Catholics feel very close to Christ’s death during Mass and often pray and cry feeling the vastness of the one time sacrifice, the eternal sacrifice that was finished and done and yet exists for all sinners through all time, as long as they come to the cross and believe Christ died for them.
Protestants worship Christ as risen and are grateful for the forgiveness (something the charismatic Catholic movement is also active) YET, here is the part, YET…in order for us to know we must come to Christ, as priest, OR lamb…we are realizing, we are coming to that moment in time, where he took all our sins away at the cross. If our sins are forgiven before we are aware, when we were yet still sinners, dead to our sin…then surely, when we come in repentance it is to be at the foot of the cross throughout time, is it not?
So during Mass, when one says a Mass for somebody and that person offers their broken and contrite heart for forgiveness, one can say thus the Mass offers forgiveness of sins. Right? yet a Protestant will say the Mass is a works salvation, yet if it is the moment Christ died for us to take our sins away, wouldn’t it make sense the Mass takes sin away? The Mass is not independent of the cross, right?

I am trying to see how the Mass, the Church and Christ can be separated IF HE is truly present. Yet, if both Catholics and Protestants recognize the fact for ongoing repentance, than the sacrfice of the cross , having taken our sin away, and both Catholics and Protestants believe this to be true…is always present IF we find a need and desire to confess and be repentant for our current sins. Right?

So, if we , as humans find the need to come to the cross, to confess, to be repentant with our hearts, then on some level, we are aware we must be in a present state of confession at the cross. If this is the case, than a Protestant can’t say that we are forgiven for everything for all time because then they would feel no need to repent for their behavior that day or what not. Knowing they are forgiven is one thing, but having that sense of asking for forgiveness still makes the conscience actively at the cross, right? If anyone can clarify this for me, thank you.

I am truly wondering this, I have no motives, I do not claim any answers, I am very UNBLESSED with scholarly knowledge, I can’t use fancy logic or make hidden points. I read both Catholic and Protestant apologetics daily because I love the Catholic church and my husband loves being Protestant, luckily we both love Christ but I would really like to hear from both sides on this, to see if what I’m saying seems in any way accurate. Please don’t Shoot me down, I am not trying to be cut up. I just am asking for your corrections, viewpoints, validations, or polite advice and or views. Thank you, God BLess.

 

[Hiskid1973]

Nice post…It’s cool you and your hubby see it’s all about Jesus…I was in a thread about gay masses…How the “couples” walk up hand and to the Lord’s table…We have a time before we partake to examine our lives…Man I ask forgiveness even if I has a disagreement with my beloved before church…Man I want to approach Him with a pure heart…I have no idea what they are thinking about…I really feel Christ is returning soon…I was to live my life passionate to Him…

 

[Heartfelt]

Yes, thank you for posting. I agree, I feel Christ calling us so much. My son, before he could barely talk looked up in the sky and said, “God, is coming soon…” and I will never forget that moment. It was 5 years ago when HE WAS 3!!! So…I am really certain we are closer than we think and I agree, that burning for a pure heart, that transparent heart, that type of intimate love…this is what we are called to!!! Thank you for responding to my post. I hope others will respond as well. This is an issue close to my heart.

 

[Barbkw]

Heartfelt,

I will only speak for myself, as I am a revert to the Church and am continually growing in faith and understanding of the mysteries of salvation in the Catholic Church through His Sacraments.

My time for repentance generally comes in the Sacrament of Reconciliation / Conversion where I admit to myself, to Jesus and to His priest that I have sinned and need His mercy and His grace. The confessional is intended for moral sins, but venial sins can also be included.

Most confession times are 90 to 60 minutes prior to the celebration of the Mass in which we receive Christ - His body, blood, soul and divinity - in the Eucharist.

During the celebration of the Mass, in the liturgy, the Confiteor prayer is recited during the season of Lent for our venial sins.

catholicmoms.com/cathprayers.htm#10

I appreciate your question and your explanation of how touched you are to attach your sins to the cross.

In our way, we do the same. We give our sins to Christ’s priest and he in turn, gives us absolution from them, and then Christ adds to that forgiveness His grace to help us live free from those sins.

 

[cooterhein]

Hi. I’m non-Catholic. I’ll try to interact with the things you see in Protestants as best I can and tell you what I see in myself and in other Protestants.

I am around both Catholics and Protestants in equal measure. What I find, is that Catholics and Protestants BOTH seem to agree, that they need to ‘come to the cross’, and many times I hear Protestants say …"I am nailing this sin to the cross’ and "Take it to the cross of Christ’ and yet…if Protestants don’t believe Christ is still on the cross, how are they nailing the sins on the cross?

There’s a thing that I grew up with, and it’s not all that uncommon at Protestant churches. On Good Friday, they’ll have a cross set up somewhere in the sanctuary. It might have a crown of thorns on it, or maybe a purple/red shroud-ish thing hanging on it. Somewhere in the course of the Good Friday service, everyone gets in line for a hammer and nail with a piece of paper in hand. Then you literally nail your sins to the cross.

There’s a couple of things I want to point out. First, it’s always a cross, not a crucifix. Second, the death of Christ is brought to remembrance in a meaningful way, but it’s always a historical event that happened 2,000 years ago rather than something that mystically happens all the time and is made present. When we nail our sins to the cross, we remember what Christ did. The presence of an actual cross in the sanctuary makes it more meaningful, but it doesn’t make Christ present or re-do the sacrifice in any way.

Protestants, believe they confess directly to Christ as High Priest and are forgiven when they ask in a repentant heart, a broken and contrite heart.

Yes, and the High Priest who now forgives us and at one time was sacrificed for us (once for all- there is no more sacrifice for sin) is currently situated (body and soul) at the right hand of the Father.

He only died once, He will never die again, and He will never have need of being raised to life again. Of this much, I think we can agree. But it gets a little fuzzy for me when you start talking about a partial-sacrifice partial-death process that happens to Him several times every week. Unless you’re talking about two different Jesuses- one OK and one in great pain- always present at all times, or at least most times? Kind of like a fourth member of the Trinity?

Yet, if they believe like it is true, that Christ died once for our sins, than when they ask for forgiveness with a repentant heart, that means they are at the foot of the cross, because they are by nature of asking for forgiveness

Yes, good so far.

at the moment Christ died on the cross for all their sins, right?

The rest was good, but this part’s no good. Christ died on the cross 2,000 years ago. Protestants come to the foot of the cross now. So it’s not at the moment Christ died for our sins.

So, wouldn’t it make sense then, that Christ on the cross is present throughout all time,

I’m sorry, but I don’t think that makes any sense. Please refer to the part about partial-deaths, partial-sacrifices, and a fourth member of the Trinity.

We become active participants in his death, like it says, we become dead in Christ so we can rise wtih Him. Right?

We deal with the same content within the New Testament, but we use certain passages differently. I could probably help you out more if you referenced some of them.

If Christ didn’t function as the lamb, and ONLY as high priest

I don’t know of anyone who says that. This is probably a better representation of what Protestants will typically say of Christ’s identity and function with regard to “lamb” and “high priest” at different points in time.

Then: Jesus was rightly called the Great High Priest. That’s who He was, and that’s how He functioned. He was also the Lamb of God, and He functioned as the sacrificial lamb.

Now: Jesus is still the Great High Priest, and that’s still how He functions. Jesus is still the Lamb of God, and He still takes away the sins of the world. But He no longer functions as the sacrificial lamb. His sacrifice was a once-for-all payment for sin, where the words “It is finished” are best interpreted as “Paid in full.” Over the doors of some ancient buldings in that area, those same Aramaic words are still written there. They refer to a debtor who once lived in such a building, but once the debt was completely paid, the words were written over the door and the debtor was no longer a debtor.

Catholics participate in the Eucharistic Mass every week with the understanding that you constantly keep going into “sin debt” and the combination of holy man, holy site, and holy elements gets you out of debt. Protestants “go to the foot of the cross” (and sometimes actually nail their sins to a wooden cross) for somewhat different reasons. We go there with the understanding that we could go home after (or before!) the Good Friday service, write those Aramaic words above our doors, and leave them there. That, in a nutshell, is what the empty cross means to us.

Of course, we’ll still sin and God will still forgive. But the payment for our sin debt was poured out one time at Calvary, that one payment was infinite, and there is now no more sacrifice for sin.

than we wouldn’t need to come to him at all with any repentance because we would assume we were completely pure. Is this a correct assumption?

No. Central to this discussion is the difference between imputed righteousness and infused righteousness. In order to understand the Protestant teaching on this matter, you need to look into forensic justification and the meaning of “simul iustus et peccator.”

Will someone clarify this for me?

I certainly hope that “simul iustus et peccator” does something good for you.

 

[Reuben_J]

Hi Heartfelt,

Forgiveness of sin is done during the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession) whereby with a heart of repentance, having been remorse of our sin, we confess it. This is a Sacrament, an outward sign of inward grace.

As for the mass, the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, there is much that can be said of it. Suffice to say it is the summit of all worship whereby we witness the Last Supper and Calvary all over again. This Sacrament is actually a celebration; no wonder terms like celebrating and celebrant are used in connection with it.

As a response to your post, perhaps this observation might be helpful for you. The fullness of the mass will include the Holy Communion whereby we partake in the real Body and Blood of Jesus, thereby spiritually and physically we are in communion with him. You can say it is the fore shadow of the thing to come where we will be in full communion with the Lord in his heavenly kingdom. Catholics will see the beauty of the mass in many different ways as its grace and power affect them individually so there is much that can be said of the mass.

In order that we can take the Holy Communion, we must be in the state of grace – remembering that God is so holy that only holiness can be with him. By the Sacrament of Reconciliation we are forgiven of our sins and therefore worthy to allow Christ to enter our body.

It is truly awesome for us to be able to celebrate the mass, and no word can truly really describe it. Whenever we are unable to do so due to one reason or the other, there is so much longing for it that the emptiness of not being able to celebrate it is also so much profound too.

God bless you.

 

[cooterhein]

I guess I needed two parts for this.

I feel like Catholics feel very close to Christ’s death during Mass and often pray and cry

I feel that my response to the cool feelings Catholics get at Mass is approximately in line with that of most Protestants. I compare it to speaking in tongues, barking at God, getting slain in the Spirit, etc.

All of these things are ecstatic experiences. And while I won’t dispute the reality of what you feel, I don’t necessarily attibute those feelings to any kind of activity by God. For example, I don’t tend to believe anyone actually speaks angelic languages, even if you do feel pretty ecstatic at certain times. I also don’t tend to believe claims about Christ’s mystical all-the-time almost-death, even if you do feel something at Mass.

YET, here is the part, YET…in order for us to know we must come to Christ, as priest, OR lamb…we are realizing, we are coming to that moment in time

This is the part where I don’t have good things to say about internal validity. This is how it looks as a more formal argument.

IF p (we come to Christ) AND
IF q (we call Christ either priest or lamb)
THEN r (we must realize we are coming to that moment in time).

This argument fails because we can deny “r” without denying either “p” or “q.”

In order for this argument to achieve internal validity, it would have to look something like this.

IF p (we come to Christ) AND
IF q (we call Christ either priest or lamb) AND
IF r (we also refer to Christ as the lamb who is being sacrificed right now)
THEN s (we must realize that we are coming to Christ at a time when He is being sacrificed).

If our sins are forgiven before we are aware, when we were yet still sinners,

“While we were yet sinners” is the time at which Christ loved us and died for us. It is not the time at which God forgave us. That time is different for everyone, and it happens when it happens.

The Mass is not independent of the cross, right?

I’ll take this question entirely on its own. Yes, the Mass is independent of the cross. Catholics answer this question differently, and that explains our differences in the way we “come to the cross.”

I am trying to see how the Mass, the Church and Christ can be separated IF HE is truly present.

It’s pretty easy to do that when you deny the RP, and that’s exactly what I do. But I do agree that it would make very little sense for someone to affirm the RP while trying to separate the Mass from the Cross.

Yet, if both Catholics and Protestants recognize the fact for ongoing repentance, than the sacrfice of the cross , having taken our sin away, and both Catholics and Protestants believe this to be true…is always present IF we find a need and desire to confess and be repentant for our current sins. Right?

Most Protestants deny the RP. So most Protestants do not believe the event of Christ’s sacrifice is “always present.” His torture had a beginning, and it ended in death. Then He was raised to life eternal, never to die again. It’s not accurate to say Jesus has experienced any physical torture since His death, and it’s also not accurate to say He needs to.

So, if we , as humans find the need to come to the cross, to confess, to be repentant with our hearts, then we are aware we must be in a present state of confession at the cross.

Yes, we need to confess. But after Jesus’ death, He never needed to suffer again.

If this is the case, than a Protestant can’t say that we are forgiven for everything for all time because then they would feel no need to repent for their behavior that day or what not.

Again, simul iustus et peccator and forensic justification. Understand this and understand why this isn’t what happens.

Knowing they are forgiven is one thing, but having that sense of asking for forgiveness still makes the conscience actively at the cross, right? If anyone can clarify this for me, thank you.

I hope the Reformation theology is of some assistance. We obviously don’t mean the same things when we talk about “being forgiven” or “have been justified.” This leads to pretty different conclusions. Perhaps you could help me out by telling me how many Jesuses currently exist, and if it’s just one, what does an average week look like in terms of pain and suffering? And maybe clarify one other thing for me: I just want to make sure Catholics don’t believe Jesus has actually died and been resurrected any more than once. That’s how I currently understand the teaching, but I want to make sure.

I am truly wondering this, I have no motives, I do not claim any answers, I am very UNBLESSED with scholarly knowledge, I can’t use fancy logic or make hidden points.

You did have a whole lot of if/thens going on. You’re using logic, and it’s sufficiently fancy. One of the good things about good logic is that it makes things more clear rather than more hidden.

I read both Catholic and Protestant apologetics daily because I love the Catholic church and my husband loves being Protestant, luckily we both love Christ

Oh, snap! That’s unusual.

but I would really like to hear from both sides on this, to see if what I’m saying seems in any way accurate. Please don’t Shoot me down, I am not trying to be cut up. I just am asking for your corrections, viewpoints, validations, or polite advice and or views. Thank you, God BLess.

Cool. Please correct me if I’m wrong about this, but this is what I got out of the OP.

Once we look at the things Protestants and Catholics agree about concerning Christ’s sacrifice and what it means to “come to the cross” (or…once we establish p, q, r, and s as our basis)…

We wind up having enough in common that we really should agree on the RP as our conclusion, and Heartfelt wants to know why we don’t.

Is that right?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Catholics proclaim “Christ crucified” it is evident in every Catholic church that displays a crucifix in every Church world wide.

The Catholic biblical ministry of reconciliation to which you reference here deals with those Catholics who are already saved by virtue of our sacramental baptism, who “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (as the bible teaches). This ministry of reconciliation deals with those who are already saved.

The Mass has two parts the liturgy of the Word which is where “faith cometh by hearing and hearing” when both the saved and the unsaved are all welcome to particpate.

The second part which is the liturgy of the Eucharist when Jesus body, blood soul and divnity is truly present to all those who believe from the “Amen”. It is here and here only that inorder to participate one has to have his/her “wedding garment on” which is baptism in order to enter these mysteries of God. An unbeliever cannot participate without a wedding garment less he/she be tied hand and foot and cast out, as Jesus spoke in his parable of the wedding feast in the Kingdom of God. This does not exhaust the Mysteries of the Mass but only introduces them.

The heart of the Protestants message deals with becoming saved not being saved working out your salvation with fear and trembling as scripture teaches.

If one can grasp the understanding that Protestants teach that faith is what it takes on being saved, that is why they leave out good works. Catholics preach this also that faith brings one to the baptismal waters in order to enter into the Kingdom of God and be born from above. The difference between Protestants and Catholics begin with what happens after one is baptised (saved) as Catholics teach, and saved by faith as Protestants teach.

The after saved event is where the misunderstandings appear. Because the Catholic Chuch holds to “faith and good works” in working out your salvation with fear and trembling. Protestants object to this biblical teaching by only referencing what it takes to be saved only. Protestants or I should say non-catholic christians do not have a ministry of reconciliation after one is saved, because they hold to a man made theology of being saved by faith only, never by works. To which Catholics agree with baptism, then “faith and good works” as the book of James teaches, after one is saved.

In the book of Revelations Jesus is “standing as a lamb as though slain”. This sacrificial posture of Jesus in heaven is being presented before the Father on behalf of our sins from every age from the flood up to the end of the world. This lamb sacrifice is being presented to the Father in heaven (eternity) made present in time during (“do this in rememberance of me”) Mass for the forgiveness of sins in every age. This is the “do this in memory of me” taken place in time from eternity from the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, which is recited at Mass 3x’s, so as to proclaim Christ Crucified from eternity once and for all made present in time at Mass as the Lord commanded His Church to do always in “rememberance me”. Again this is just one aspect of introducing this great and wonderful mystery of God who is with us.

I think, when discussing with a protestant about the ministry of reconciliation or about being saved, one should make clear if the discussion deals with those who need to be saved or with those already saved.

This is only an introduction to the mysteries of reconiliation and the liturgy of the Mass.

Peace be with you

 

[Hiskid1973]

I enjoy posts when we’re civil with each other trying to understand…

 

[Heartfelt]

It seems almost too trivial to just say thank you, but all of your posts have been very helpful, thank you kind people for pointing out these things to me and helping me along my way. God Bless all of you. Thank you so so much.

 

[Barbkw]

ncregister.com/info/confession_guide_for_adults/

This Catholic adult examination of conscience guide might be of interest to you.

 

[Barbkw]

This is a bit off topic, but at Mass, we are celebrating the Wedding Feast of the Lamb that is noted in Revelation. Catholics who understand the ceremony, are renewing their vows to be like Christ. To become one with Him at the Eucharist.

I know that protestant denominations don’t normally believe in a communion of saints.

At Mass, I am brought into the mystery where heaven meets earth. We here on earth are united with Jesus and His wedding party, the communion of saints.

He is the bridegroom, His Church and the members of it are His bride.

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p5.htm

 

[Barbkw]

amazon.com/Lambs-Supper-Mass-Heaven-Earth/product-reviews/0385496591/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Perhaps your library might have a copy of Prof. Scott Hahn’s book. He’s a convert from a protestant denomination and the book has over 170 positive reviews on Amazon.

 

[cooterhein]

Hello, you said some things about Protestants. There’s a variety of belief and opinion regarding some of the things you brought up. I’d like to share a couple of things that I sometimes hear and see as a person with an inside perspective.

The heart of the Protestants message deals with becoming saved not being saved working out your salvation with fear and trembling as scripture teaches.

There are quite a few Protestants who believe (though it’s usually not taught as such) that salvation is little more than a preference for heaven rather than hell, a genuine request that God send you to heaven rather than hell, and a divine guarantee to that effect which automatically results from a certain type of prayer. For this kind of person, assurance of salvation is based on the sincerity of their request to go to heaven.

I don’t think that’s any kind of meaningful assurance, but I do have an idea of what meaningful assurance looks like. I also think it can be applied to all Christians in its most basic form.

I believe salvation is an act of God. It is something that God does, and it is not something that we do. I would also add that it’s not something that we can cause Him to initiate, but if I did that, this could no longer apply to all Christians.

I (and most people who call themselves Reformed, Evangelical, or proponents of Lordship Salvation) will describe salvation as something of a package deal. When God does it, a lot of things are happening at once. First, it’s marked by the moment at which God starts indwelling you. Second, when God starts indwelling you, He transforms you into a different kind of person that is otherwise known as a Christian. Third, He continues indwelling the Christian and sanctifies him/her. Fourth, His indwelling presence is what seals you and protects you from judgment.

Assurance of present salvation (regardless of perseverance) can be had as long as you know that God presently indwells your body. If you’re completely on your own and you don’t have another person living inside you, that’s not a good thing. But if He is indwelling you (which means you are a Christian), He will not be hidden or inactive (which is a handy way of finding out if He’s there). When God indwells people, He is always doing a variety of things- it is absolutely not limited to the act of moving in, or even to the initial act of transformation.

For proponents of Easy-Believism or Free Grace, they typically don’t ask themselves if they were ever indwelt by God who then transformed them into a Christian and now presently indwells them. At best, they might conclude that this should have happened when they prayed the sinner’s prayer, but they probably haven’t determined the reality of such an event in an objective, stand-alone kind of way. They also probably haven’t considered the possibility that they prayed to God for a miracle and He didn’t actually do it right away.

If one can grasp the understanding that Protestants teach that faith is what it takes on being saved, that is why they leave out good works.

The predominant teaching among Protestants is not always the sort of thing that makes its way down to the common belief among Protestants, and sadly, that seems to be the trend with some core aspects of soteriology. To the extent that Protestants minimize works and say they’re strictly optional, that’s definitely not good. However, for those who teach God’s word, the strong language against that sort of thing is nearly unavoidable. We might still have slight differences, however, on the agency of salvation. I readily concur that faith without works is dead, but that doesn’t mean I’ll give myself credit for being the agent of salvation along with God. And whenever I seek assurance of salvation, it has nothing to do with anything I do, simply because I can (and have!) faked my way through that in the past. I know how easily that can lead to a false positive. Rather, I look to what God has done, where He is (within me), and what He is doing (within me). Based on where God is and what He is doing, that’s how I can know that I’m a Christian. I think you get more reliable results from those kinds of inquiries than the kind that ask for a strong good-works-to-sin ratio, although an abysmal ratio certainly would cast doubt on someone’s claim to being indwelt by a God who is constantly influencing their life.

The difference between Protestants and Catholics begin with what happens after one is baptised (saved) as Catholics teach, and saved by faith as Protestants teach.

Protestants will typically teach that growth and sanctification must follow salvation (which is not necessarily associated with baptism), but the Protestants who hear this teaching will quite often…well, go on to act as if they don’t know who God is or what He wants from them. In many cases, it’s as if the Protestant is a person who prayed the sinner’s prayer and got baptized, but in spite of this, God is not indwelling them or doing anything to them.

When that kind of thing happens (which is way too frequent), I think that’s when it’s on the Protestant pastors/teachers to emphasize the divine agency of salvation and encourage the “faith that is dead” kinds of Protestants to ask some tough questions of themselves- ie., does God currently dwell within you?

Protestants or I should say non-catholic christians do not have a ministry of reconciliation after one is saved

This is a pretty good sermon outline on the ministry of reconciliation from the Protestant viewpoint. ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/2cor/2co5_18.htm

Hope that’s of interest to you.

In the book of Revelations Jesus is “standing as a lamb as though slain”.

It’s a bit of a quibble point, but the lamb’s “standing, as though it had been slain.” With seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God.

 

[Reuben_J]

The predominant teaching among Protestants is not always the sort of thing that makes its way down to the common belief among Protestants, and sadly, that seems to be the trend with some core aspects of soteriology. To the extent that Protestants minimize works and say they’re strictly optional, that’s definitely not good. However, for those who teach God’s word, the strong language against that sort of thing is nearly unavoidable. We might still have slight differences, however, on the agency of salvation. I readily concur that faith without works is dead, but that doesn’t mean I’ll give myself credit for being the agent of salvation along with God. And whenever I seek assurance of salvation, it has nothing to do with anything I do, simply because I can (and have!) faked my way through that in the past. I know how easily that can lead to a false positive. Rather, I look to what God has done, where He is (within me), and what He is doing (within me). Based on where God is and what He is doing, that’s how I can know that I’m a Christian. I think you get more reliable results from those kinds of inquiries than the kind that ask for a strong good-works-to-sin ratio, although an abysmal ratio certainly would cast doubt on someone’s claim to being indwelt by a God who is constantly influencing their life.

Hi.

This part of your post strikes me and if you say this is our difference, you are quite right.

Whenever I seek assurance of my salvation, it’s equally has to do with what I do. I know its God’s prerogative but I have an indispensible part to play. Without my cooperation and my assent God’s salvation is useless for me.

God bless.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Two questions cooterhein?

1. How do you know God has saved you by what visible or invisible act does God do to save you? And can you support your view from sacred scripture and sacred Tradition practiced and taught by the Apostles themselves?
2. Can you describe the action that took place for God to “indwell in you”? If you do not participate at all in God’s salvation work, How is that you know God caused his presence to indwell in you? and how can you determine the difference between a diabolical indwelling which can appear as an angel of light, and God’s indwelling? when your position negates any “cause and effect” from recieving your salvation?

Or am I to assume your faith and feelings inform you that God has saved you? Because you gave no detail of how your salvation has come to be in the present without no assurance of God being present to indwell in you, can you give a reason for your hope and how this comes about without recalling a biblical memory of Jesus passion death and resurrection?

I believe salvation is an act of God. It is something that God does, and it is not something that we do. I would also add that it’s not something that we can cause Him to initiate, but if I did that, this could no longer apply to all Christians.

I (and most people who call themselves Reformed, Evangelical, or proponents of Lordship Salvation) will describe salvation as something of a package deal. When God does it, a lot of things are happening at once. First, it’s marked by the moment at which God starts indwelling you. Second, when God starts indwelling you, He transforms you into a different kind of person that is otherwise known as a Christian. Third, He continues indwelling the Christian and sanctifies him/her. Fourth, His indwelling presence is what seals you and protects you from judgment.

Interesting comment you make below and I can not make out what your point is? question? can you interpret for me the seven horns, seven eyes and name the seven spirits?

It’s a bit of a quibble point, but the lamb’s “standing, as though it had been slain.” With seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God.

 

[gtrenewed]

I feel that my response to the cool feelings Catholics get at Mass is approximately in line with that of most Protestants. I compare it to speaking in tongues, barking at God, getting slain in the Spirit, etc.

All of these things are ecstatic experiences. And while I won’t dispute the reality of what you feel, I don’t necessarily attibute those feelings to any kind of activity by God. For example, I don’t tend to believe anyone actually speaks angelic languages, even if you do feel pretty ecstatic at certain times. I also don’t tend to believe claims about Christ’s mystical all-the-time almost-death, even if you do feel something at Mass.

This is the part where I don’t have good things to say about internal validity.

In this post you are against internal validity and in your post #14 you claim the in dwelling presence of God as internal validity of your salvation.

By the way that is an ecstatic experience, is it not?

Paul says that Christ indwells us by faith. If you do not believe anyone actually speaks in angelic tongues only means it won’t happen for you. However, it does not mean that tongues do not exist for someone who by faith believes scripture.

Jesus revealed hidden mysteries to his disciples. The ecstatic and the mystical have been with us from the beginning as evidenced from Genesis through Revelation. If you are not part of it only means you have not put your faith there. Your sanitized and mathmaticalized view of faith may work for you but you miss out on faith experiences. I am not talking about the weird manifestations which are fleshly and/or demonic but you can not read Revelation and miss the fact that there is the mystical.

To have a view of the perpetual sacrifice of Christ does not mean He suffers perpetually for that goes against scripture. Mysteries must be meditated upon, sometimes for years in order to grasp them. Paul went to a place in heaven that he could not even describe. For sure this was an ecstatic experience.

It seems to me that the OP, Heartfelt, tried to put into words the result of meditation on a mystery of our faith; a very hard and courageous thing to do. It would do all of us well to meditate more, love more as a result and share the love of Christ.