Biblical basis for having to "Except Christ as your personal saviour"?

[Kortyr]

If I am correct, many Protestants believe that to be saved, you must say some sinner’s prayer and “except Christ as your personal saviour.” Where is the basis for this idea? How do they take lines like “those who believe in him will have eternal life” and turn that into the idea that you must except Him as your personal savior in order to go to Heaven?

Thanks for listening and God bless you all.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Just one thing: “except” means to exclude. It’s basically the opposite of “accept”, which is the word you’re looking for.

“Accept Christ as your personal savior” is one of the many traditions and precepts of men taught by pop-evangelicals.

NOWHERE does the Bible use the phrase “accept Christ” or “personal savior.”

 

[WALTHER]

If I am correct, many Protestants believe that to be saved, you must say some sinner’s prayer and “except Christ as your personal saviour.” Where is the basis for this idea? How do they take lines like “those who believe in him will have eternal life” and turn that into the idea that you must except Him as your personal savior in order to go to Heaven?

Thanks for listening and God bless you all.

Hi Kortyr,

This is due to the false equating of prayer with the Word and Sacraments.

That is to say, pop-evangelicalism tends to have a low view (to say the least) of the nature and efficacy of the Sacraments of Holy Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; they also, though they would argue to the contrary, have a low view of Scripture, as they turn men to their own subjective prayers, intentions, and sincerity, rather than to belief in the simple Word that has been written for our salvation.

Yes, we must believe in Christ for our salvation; we must trust in Him, knowing by faith that He has suffered and died for us, been raised from the dead by the glory of Father, ascended to heaven, and reigns now forever and ever. AMEN.

To believe these truths is to be a Christian; not the reciting of the “sinner’s prayer”, as though our sins have not already been paid for objectively in the work and person of Christ, and as though this prayer is to replace the gracious water of Baptism and the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Supper.

WALTHER

 

[Portrait]

Just one thing: “except” means to exclude. It’s basically the opposite of “accept”, which is the word you’re looking for.

“Accept Christ as your personal savior” is one of the many traditions and precepts of men taught by pop-evangelicals.

NOWHERE does the Bible use the phrase “accept Christ” or “personal savior.”

Dear bpbasilphx,

Sacred Scripture may not use the term “accept Christ as personal saviour”, however, St. John does state in his Gospel that “…all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God” (John 1: 12). Now clearly to receive Christ is to accept Him and to accept Him is to receive Him, the two ideas are interchangeable. St. John is saying that on all who accepted (or received) Him for what He is and gave Him their allegiance, He bestowed on them the right to become what by nature they cannot be, namely, God’s children, and to be the recipients of their Father’s care and protection.

The idea of “accepting” Christ may well be identified with Protestant Evangelicalism (e.g. the Billy Graham Cruscades etc.), nevertheless, the concept is essentially a biblical one and thus cannot be dismissed as “…one of the many traditions and precepts of men taught by pop-evangelicals”.

It is remarkable that St. John does not say that the Lord made these believers children of God, but that He “gave (them) power to become” so; teaching us that our faith has a choice to make and a work to do. To “become children of God” those that received (or accepted) Him would both inwardly by faith give themselves to God as His children, and outwardly seal their choice in the initiatory Sacrament of Holy Baptism. Moreover, its instructive to see how St. Paul joins Faith and Baptism together in speaking of our entrance into a state of grace: “for in Christ Jesus you are all the sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ Jesus have put on Christ” (Galatians 3: 26-27). Needless to say we Catholics differ from Protestant Evangelicals in that we believe in baptismal regeneration and so after a convert to our religion believes the Gospel, accepts (or receives) Christ he must still, as St. Paul did, “Rise and be baptized, and wash away (his) sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22: 16). Notwithstanding, a convert who has come to the years of accountability must still receive Christ in the Gospel before he can seek the Sacrament of regeneration, I mean to say before accepting Christ he would have no desire to seek the Sacrament of Holy Baptism would he?.

Therefore I think we must concede that our Evangelical brethren do have a biblical point regarding acceptance of Jesus in the Gospel, and it would, I think, be churlish on our part to deny that. It is true that sometimes the methods used by certain evangelists (though by no means all) can be very questionable in so far as their modus operandi is very manipulative and very emotionally charged, but that is another issue. Be that as it may, who can deny that they are correct in calling sinners to repentance and pleading with them to accept or receive Christ Jesus our Lord?

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[WALTHER]

Dear bpbasilphx,

Sacred Scripture may not use the term “accept Christ as personal saviour”, however, St. John does state in his Gospel that “…all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God” (John 1: 12). Now clearly to receive Christ is to accept Him and to accept Him is to receive Him, the two ideas are interchangeable. St. John is saying that on all who accepted (or received) Him for what He is and gave Him their allegiance, He bestowed on them the right to become what by nature they cannot be, namely, God’s children, and to be the recipients of their Father’s care and protection.

The idea of “accepting” Christ may well be identified with Protestant Evangelicalism (e.g. the Billy Graham Cruscades etc.), nevertheless, the concept is essentially a biblical one and thus cannot be dismissed as “…one of the many traditions and precepts of men taught by pop-evangelicals”.

It is remarkable that St. John does not say that the Lord made these believers children of God, but that He “gave (them) power to become” so; teaching us that our faith has a choice to make and a work to do. To “become children of God” those that received (or accepted) Him would both inwardly by faith give themselves to God as His children, and outwardly seal their choice in the initiatory Sacrament of Holy Baptism. Moreover, its instructive to see how St. Paul joins Faith and Baptism together in speaking of our entrance into a state of grace: “for in Christ Jesus you are all the sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ Jesus have put on Christ” (Galatians 3: 26-27). Needless to say we Catholics differ from Protestant Evangelicals in that we believe in baptismal regeneration and so after a convert to our religion believes the Gospel, accepts (or receives) Christ he must still, as St. Paul did, “Rise and be baptized, and wash away (his) sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22: 16). Notwithstanding, a convert who has come to the years of accountability must still receive Christ in the Gospel before he can seek the Sacrament of regeneration, I mean to say before accepting Christ he would have no desire to seek the Sacrament of Holy Baptism would he?.

Therefore I think we must concede that our Evangelical brethren do have a biblical point regarding acceptance of Jesus in the Gospel, and it would, I think, be churlish on our part to deny that. It is true that sometimes the methods used by certain evangelists (though by no means all) can be very questionable in so far as their modus operandi is very manipulative and very emotionally charged, but that is another issue. Be that as it may, who can deny that they are correct in calling sinners to repentance and pleading with them to accept or receive Christ Jesus our Lord?

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

The point is only as Biblical as their understanding of Baptism. Yes, they do recognize Baptism as a Sacrament instituted by Christ; and while this, in and of itself, may be Scripturally warranted, yet it is their perversion of its administration, nature, and efficacy that demands we call them what they, indeed, are: fanatics, heretics, and despisers of God’s Word.

Therefore, while a verse such as John 1:12 does pertain and conform to, in some small manner and degree, the American evangelical claim of “acceptance of Christ via sinner’s prayer”, nevertheless, it is their distortion and perversion of the Holy Spirit’s working of salvation in the sinner that discredits any and all that these “evangelicals” propose in their command to “accept” Christ.

For the very next verse, John 1:13, reads plainly:

"who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

Hence, the “evangelicals”–as well as the Roman Catholics–distort the Biblical teaching of original sin as a complete and utter fall, the extent of which being too deep for our natural reason to even comprehend, of man’s whole being. For we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, and not by our decision, will, works, merits, ability, wit, wisdom, strength, etc. Rather, we are saved by the pure mercy of God for the sake of Christ through the gracious working of the Holy Spirit that creates faith in us unto salvation. Thereby not merely making faith “possible”, but actual.

WALTHER

 

[Portrait]

Dear Walther,

However intensely one may disagree with Evangelicals, and Catholics also differ with them over many issues, do you not think it uncharitable and unchristian to dub them “fanatics, heretics, and despisers of God’s Word”?; does this describe such men as Billy Graham, Charles Colson, John Stott, J.I. Packer and Mark A. Noll, surely not.

Yes they may indeed have a defective understanding of the nature and efficacy of Holy Baptism, nevertheless, to cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, (they) are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church. Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn” (Para. 1271). Moreover, Evangelicals* do* observe the essential rite of Baptism which consistists in immersion (or pouring water over the candidates head), whilst pronoucing the invocation of the Holy Trinity. Hence they are “brothers by baptism”, notwithstanding their imperfect views regarding the initiatory sacrament.

The Reformers erroneously conceived that the wounding of man’s nature in the Fall invloved the complete corruption of human nature (“Total Depravity”). However, in the condition of Original Sin, man still possesses the ability of knowing natural religious truths and of performing natural morally good actions. Moreover free will was not lost or extinguished by Adam’s fall and with his natural power of cognition man can with certainty know of God’s existence.

It is quite true that *natural *good works, performed without any motive of love for God, and by one not in God’s grace and friendship, will save no one. That is why St. Paul says, “If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing” (I Cor. 13:3). However good works inspired by God’s love and performed by one in God’s grace and friendship do contiribute towards one’s salvation. That is why St. James says, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2: 24). As a matter of fact, such good works are necessary for salvation, for a few verses later St.James says, verse 26, “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead”. One can appreciate why Luther rejected this Epistle and called it “An Epistle of straw, destitue of evangelical character”, it hardly squares with his teaching on Justification by faith alone.

Our heavenly Father has bestowed His love upon us, but the condition for keeping this love intact is keeping the commandments - an expression of this love. It is a very simple message: we are children of God by baptism and if we do not keep our baptismal innocence we have the Sacrament of Penance to set us on course again. We should never cease to save our souls by living a devout life and being fruitful in every good work;
it is the most serious undertaking of our life. “Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (Hebrews 12: 14).

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[brb2]

St. John does state in his Gospel that “…all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God” (John 1: 12). Now clearly to receive Christ is to accept Him and to accept Him is to receive Him, the two ideas are interchangeable. St. John is saying that on all who accepted (or received) Him for what He is and gave Him their allegiance, He bestowed on them the right to become what by nature they cannot be, namely, God’s children, and to be the recipients of their Father’s care and protection.

The idea of “accepting” Christ may well be identified with Protestant Evangelicalism (e.g. the Billy Graham Cruscades etc.), nevertheless, the concept is essentially a biblical one and thus cannot be dismissed as “…one of the many traditions and precepts of men taught by pop-evangelicals”.

Therefore I think we must concede that our Evangelical brethren do have a biblical point regarding acceptance of Jesus in the Gospel, and it would, I think, be churlish on our part to deny that. It is true that sometimes the methods used by certain evangelists (though by no means all) can be very questionable in so far as their modus operandi is very manipulative and very emotionally charged, but that is another issue. Be that as it may, who can deny that they are correct in calling sinners to repentance and pleading with them to accept or receive Christ Jesus our Lord?

Biblical Case made … for Personal Savior Alliance … by a Catholic

Straight from Book of John …

 

[brb2]

NOWHERE does the Bible use the phrase “accept Christ” or “personal savior.”

Actually the words used imply exactly this … and moreso. The Protestants didn’t just pull their phraseology from mythology.

 

[WALTHER]

Portrait,

You write:

However intensely one may disagree with Evangelicals, and Catholics also differ with them over many issues, do you not think it uncharitable and unchristian to dub them “fanatics, heretics, and despisers of God’s Word”?; does this describe such men as Billy Graham, Charles Colson, John Stott, J.I. Packer and Mark A. Noll, surely not.

It is no less “charitable” than St. Paul’s words to Timothy:

"If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing." **

You also write:

"Yes they may indeed have a defective understanding of the nature and efficacy of Holy Baptism, nevertheless, to cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, (they) are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church. Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn” (Para. 1271). Moreover, Evangelicals* do*

observe the essential rite of Baptism which consistists in immersion (or pouring water over the candidates head), whilst pronoucing the invocation of the Holy Trinity. Hence they are “brothers by baptism”, notwithstanding their imperfect views regarding the initiatory sacrament."

I do not argue that they are not Christians in their personal practice, but in their theoretical conjectures and rationalized distortions of Scripture, surely they are not. It is only by God’s grace that one is preserved in faith despite many errors that lead to damnation. All heterodox Christians are examples of this.

You write:

The Reformers erroneously conceived that the wounding of man’s nature in the Fall invloved the complete corruption of human nature (“Total Depravity”). However, in the condition of Original Sin, man still possesses the ability of knowing natural religious truths and of performing natural morally good actions. Moreover free will was not lost or extinguished by Adam’s fall and with his natural power of cognition man can with certainty know of God’s existence.

Square this with St. Paul’s universal description of humanity:

"None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.
Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.
The venom of asps is under their lips.
Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.
Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.
There is no fear of God before their eyes."

[Romans 3:10-18]

And again:

**“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” **

[Romans 5:12]

And again:

"For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

[Romans 8:7-8]

And again:

"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."

**

And again:

"And you were dead in your trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience…But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ–by grace you have been saved–and raised us up with him and seated us with him in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not of your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them"

[Ephesians 2:1-10]

You also write:

It is quite true that *natural *

good works, performed without any motive of love for God, and by one not in God’s grace and friendship, will save no one. That is why St. Paul says, “If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing” (I Cor. 13:3). However good works inspired by God’s love and performed by one in God’s grace and friendship do contiribute towards one’s salvation. That is why St. James says, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2: 24). As a matter of fact, such good works are necessary for salvation, for a few verses later St.James says, verse 26, “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead”. One can appreciate why Luther rejected this Epistle and called it “An Epistle of straw, destitue of evangelical character”, it hardly squares with his teaching on Justification by faith alone.

And again:

Our heavenly Father has bestowed His love upon us, but the condition for keeping this love intact is keeping the commandments - an expression of this love. It is a very simple message: we are children of God by baptism and if we do not keep our baptismal innocence we have the Sacrament of Penance to set us on course again. We should never cease to save our souls by living a devout life and being fruitful in every good work;
it is the most serious undertaking of our life. “Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (Hebrews 12: 14).

Faith alone justifies; but faith is never alone.

WALTHER

 

[mackbrislawn]

If I am correct, many Protestants believe that to be saved, you must say some sinner’s prayer and “except Christ as your personal saviour.” Where is the basis for this idea? **How do they take lines like “those who believe in him will have eternal life” and turn that into the idea that you must except Him as your personal savior in order to go to Heaven?**Thanks for listening and God bless you all.

Of course, accepting Christ as one’s personal savior is fine, and saying the sinner’s prayer is fine–I see nothing wrong in that, as far as it goes. But it does not go far enough.

What I don’t know is what a Protestant means by accepting Christ as “personal savior.” Does the Protestant himself know? Does he give it much thought? That is, what are the details and the behavioral consequences for the Christian? Do you say it, and then forget about it, since you are now saved? Or are there promises and commitments that you are making to Christ by accepting him as your Savior?

Because, the way it is commonly expressed, the term is incomplete. The complete biblical term is “personal Lord and Savior.” So often the Lord part is omitted. But isn’t that the most important part?* Doesn’t Paul say, “Believe in the LORD and you will be saved.”? And, “Those who call upon the LORD will be saved.”?

The point is that “Lord” means master, someone you obey. So if Jesus is your Lord, that means you must obey him. You must do as he says. So, unless he is first your Lord, he cannot be your savior. Lord first, then, and only then, can he also be your savior. Isn’t that why Jesus puts the question, “Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do what I say?”

 

[brb2]

**

Square this with St. Paul’s universal description of humanity:

**

And, how does Paul’s description square with Noah, Job, Elisha, Elijah, Daniel, etc, etc. ?

Might we say there are gradations of depravity … from uterly to something less than absolute. ?

And … what about Mary ? Full of Grace !!

 

[brb2]

Do you say it, and then forget about it, since you are now saved? Or are there promises and commitments that you are making to Christ by accepting him as your Savior?

The complete biblical term is “personal Lord and Savior.” So often the Lord part is omitted. Doesn’t Paul say, “Believe in the LORD and you will be saved.”? And, “Those who call upon the LORD will be saved.”?

So if Jesus is your Lord, that means you must obey him. Isn’t that why Jesus puts the question, “Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do what I say?”

IMO …

Protestants do Part 1 [believe] quite well, but w/o the Church to support/guide them … they often will overlook/neglect Part 2 [obey].

Protestants can explain Part 1 Justification to ‘some’ Catholics … Catholics generally understand/practice Part 2 more accurately.

Again, just MO … having lived in both camps.

 

[WALTHER]

And, how does Paul’s description square with Noah, Job, Elisha, Elijah, Daniel, etc, etc. ?

Might we say there are gradations of depravity … from uterly to something less than absolute. ?

And … what about Mary ? Full of Grace !!

brb2,

“Noah, Job, Elisha, Daniel, etc, etc.” were all made righteous in the same way all Christians throughout time have been made righteous: through faith in the Gospel, whether promised (Old Testament) or fulfilled (New Testament).

They are by no means excluded from the effects of the fall of Adam.

Mary was full of grace by the gracious operation of the Holy Spirit, not prior to it.

WALTHER

 

[brb2]

brb2,

“Noah, Job, Elisha, Daniel, etc, etc.” were all made righteous through faith in the Gospel, whether promised (Old Testament) or fulfilled (New Testament).

Mary was full of grace by the gracious operation of the Holy Spirit, not prior to it.

Well, the OT elect … Believed God, believed the Messiah was coming, were Obedient, and had H.S. They didn’t know about the Cross, until Christ preached to them.

And Mary … was she touched with original sin … or even formal sin ?

 

[WALTHER]

Well, the OT elect … Believed God, believed the Messiah was coming, were Obedient, and had H.S. They didn’t know about the Cross, until Christ preached to them.

And Mary … was she touched with original sin … or even formal sin ?

First answer me this: what need is there a of salvation apart from and without sin?

WALTHER

 

[brb2]

First answer me this: what need is there a of salvation apart from and without sin?

WALTHER

Catholics believe Mary was PRESERVED from sin, from her conception. Some Protestants believe she was CLEANSED of sins, upon her visitation by angel.

Either way … she was sinless when carrying Christ into world.

Other Protestants don’t think her need for sinless state makes any difference … since, God cannot be stained by his creations. But, scriptures argue against them … saying God indeed desired to enter this world via a Holy Vessel.

So, Mary was saved ‘from sinning’ … whereas all the rest are saved ‘after’ sinning. Can the pot tell the potter he can’t make a distinction/ exception to his rule ?

 

[WALTHER]

Catholics believe Mary was PRESERVED from sin, from her conception. Some Protestants believe she was CLEANSED of sins, upon her visitation by angel.

Either way … she was sinless when carrying Christ into world.

Other Protestants don’t think her need for sinless state makes any difference … since, God cannot be stained by his creations. But, scriptures argue against them … saying God indeed desired to enter this world via a Holy Vessel.

So, Mary was saved ‘from sinning’ … whereas all the rest are saved ‘after’ sinning. Can the pot tell the potter he can’t make a distinction/ exception to his rule ?

Precisely: there is no need for salvation apart from and without sin.

To say that Mary was “preserved” from sin from the moment of her conception is to deny the saving and universal work of Christ.

It follows then, that:

1. Christ died for sinners
2. Mary was without sin
3. Therefore, Christ did not die for Mary
4. Hence, Mary was saved, not only apart from and without sin, but also apart from and the without the blood and cross of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Does the Roman Church teach that Christ died for Mary?

WALTHER

 

[Portrait]

Dear Walther,

I see that the thread has progressed a little since my last posting, However I should like to be able to respond to your last reply so I trust that the later posters will forgive this intrusion into the current discussion.

It is wildly illogical for you to state that you accept that Evangelicals are Christians in “personal practice” but not in a theoretical sense. Either they are Christians or they are not. Would it not be more gracious to say that they are bona-fide Christians, albeit erring ones and, with charity, seek to explain to them the way of God more accurately?

Now regarding Justification by Faith, I expect as a Lutheran you are aware of the Catholic-Lutheran dialouge. After many years of patient discussion, officials at the highest levels of the Catholic and Lutheran Churches have basicly agreed that “justification is by grace alone through faith” (Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, Annex, Para. 2, London, Catholic Truth Society). The implications of this agreement are profound to say the least. The good news is that this thorny issue has, for all intents and purposes, been resolved. There is a consensus that salvation is by grace through faith, and that faith must be “lived out through the Christian life”. This is an exciting step forward and a huge milestone, as I am sure you will concur. Is there now any formal reason why Protestants and catholics should disagree over the doctrine of justification?

I am glad that we agree substantially on the need for a living, active faith - yes Calvin was quite right when he said faith can never be alone. However, so as to be clear about Catholic teaching, I should point out a subtle difference between a reformed understanding of good works and the Catholic one. When I was a Reformed Anglican, I held that owing to original sin I was “totally depraved”. When God justified me, he saw only Jesus - not me. It was as if He had covered my sin with the blood of Christ’s saving Passion. I think it was Luther who used the analogy of “a dungheap covered with snow” As Catholics we reject this view; we believe in original sin, of course, but not total depravity; no we do not believe that our nature is a mass of corruption. Following St. Augustine we hold that original sin wounds God’s image in us and so requires the healing of the Atonement. The passages from Sacred Scripture that you cited do not invalidate our position, all that they affirm, sometimes employing hyperbole, is that man after the fall is exceedingly wicked not that he is all wickedness.

Our Lord’s work on the cross restores us and enables us to co-operate with the grace of God in our lives. Our Church believes that justification is not merely something put over us like a cover; we don’t believe it to be a mere juridical act (actus forensis) in which God declares the sinner justified, although he remains in reallity intrinsically unjust and sinful. As Ludwig Ott insightfully remarks, “It would be incompatible with the veracity and sanctity of God that He should declare the sinner to be justified, if he remains in reallity sinful” (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 251, Tan Books, 1974).

What of the ancient worthies of the old economy such as Abraham, Noah and Daniel etc.
Of course they inherited original sin but their lives were characterized not only by a personal faith but by faith-full actions so to speak. I mean there was so much more to their faith than belief in God’s promises and covenant; their faith was inner belief lived out through their good and courageous decisions and actions. Indeed it was these good and courageous actions that earned them a place in the Hebrews hall of fame. They were justified by their good works as well as by their faith in God and a coming Saviour, as the examples of Abraham and Rahab both exemplify ( see St. James 2: 21-26) - thus proving beyond any doubt that we are not justified by faith alone.

With warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[brb2]

Dear Walther,

I see that the thread has progressed a little since my last posting, However I should like to be able to respond to your last reply so I trust that the later posters will forgive this intrusion into the current discussion.

It is wildly illogical for you to state that you accept that Evangelicals are Christians in “personal practice” but not in a theoretical sense. Either they are Christians or they are not. Would it not be more gracious to say that they are bona-fide Christians, albeit erring ones and, with charity, seek to explain to them the way of God more accurately?

Now regarding Justification by Faith, I expect as a Lutheran you are aware of the Catholic-Lutheran dialouge. After many years of patient discussion, officials at the highest levels of the Catholic and Lutheran Churches have basicly agreed that “justification is by grace alone through faith” (Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, Annex, Para. 2, London, Catholic Truth Society). The implications of this agreement are profound to say the least. The good news is that this thorny issue has, for all intents and purposes, been resolved. There is a consensus that salvation is by grace through faith, and that faith must be “lived out through the Christian life”. This is an exciting step forward and a huge milestone, as I am sure you will concur. Is there now any formal reason why Protestants and catholics should disagree over the doctrine of justification?

I am glad that we agree substantially on the need for a living, active faith - yes Calvin was quite right when he said faith can never be alone. However, so as to be clear about Catholic teaching, I should point out a subtle difference between a reformed understanding of good works and the Catholic one. When I was a Reformed Anglican, I held that owing to original sin I was “totally depraved”. When God justified me, he saw only Jesus - not me. It was as if He had covered my sin with the blood of Christ’s saving Passion. I think it was Luther who used the analogy of “a dungheap covered with snow” As Catholics we reject this view; we believe in original sin, of course, but not total depravity; no we do not believe that our nature is a mass of corruption. Following St. Augustine we hold that original sin wounds God’s image in us and so requires the healing of the Atonement. The passages from Sacred Scripture that you cited do not invalidate our position, all that they affirm, sometimes employing hyperbole, is that man after the fall is exceedingly wicked not that he is all wickedness.

Our Lord’s work on the cross restores us and enables us to co-operate with the grace of God in our lives. Our Church believes that justification is not merely something put over us like a cover; we don’t believe it to be a mere juridical act (actus forensis) in which God declares the sinner justified, although he remains in reallity intrinsically unjust and sinful. As Ludwig Ott insightfully remarks, “It would be incompatible with the veracity and sanctity of God that He should declare the sinner to be justified, if he remains in reallity sinful” (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 251, Tan Books, 1974).

What of the ancient worthies of the old economy such as Abraham, Noah and Daniel etc.
Of course they inherited original sin but their lives were characterized not only by a personal faith but by faith-full actions so to speak. I mean there was so much more to their faith than belief in God’s promises and covenant; their faith was inner belief lived out through their good and courageous decisions and actions. Indeed it was these good and courageous actions that earned them a place in the Hebrews hall of fame. They were justified by their good works as well as by their faith in God and a coming Saviour, as the examples of Abraham and Rahab both exemplify ( see St. James 2: 21-26) - thus proving beyond any doubt that we are not justified by faith alone.

With warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Portrait …

Where have you been ? Welcome to the Forum.

You have an excellent mind — merging both Faith & Reason in your apologetics. JP2 would be proud of you.

Perhaps you could explain to Walther … why Mary was indeed saved by Christ her Lord.
You can paint a better ‘portrait’ than most here

 

[WALTHER]

PART I

Portrait,

You write:

It is wildly illogical for you to state that you accept that Evangelicals are Christians in “personal practice” but not in a theoretical sense. Either they are Christians or they are not. Would it not be more gracious to say that they are bona-fide Christians, albeit erring ones and, with charity, seek to explain to them the way of God more accurately?

It is hardly “wildly illogical” for me to state that evangelicals are Christians in personal practice but not in theoretical formulation. The reason being, while a Calvinist may deny–in theory–the universal atonement of Christ, and thereby throwing uncertainty upon the question of whether or not Christ has actually died for their sins, yet–in practice–when this same Calvinist is brought to utter despair over his sins, longing to be freed from the hungry jaws of death and hell, he will comfort himself, not with the doctrine of double predestination, but with the Gospel promise, namely, that Christ has died for sinners (and thus himself), and that through faith he receives the grace won for him by His life, death, resurrection.

Therefore, the Calvinist is, indeed, a puffed-up theologian of glory, formulating his doctrine according to his own natural reason, and thus denying the universal grace of God. However, it is when he stands before God that he, by a felicitous inconsistency, necessarily assumes the doctrine of universal grace, including himself among the sinners for whom Christ died.

Hence, Portrait, the distinction between Christian theory and Christian practice.

You also write:

Now regarding Justification by Faith, I expect as a Lutheran you are aware of the Catholic-Lutheran dialouge. After many years of patient discussion, officials at the highest levels of the Catholic and Lutheran Churches have basicly agreed that “justification is by grace alone through faith” (Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, Annex, Para. 2, London, Catholic Truth Society). The implications of this agreement are profound to say the least. The good news is that this thorny issue has, for all intents and purposes, been resolved. There is a consensus that salvation is by grace through faith, and that faith must be “lived out through the Christian life”. This is an exciting step forward and a huge milestone, as I am sure you will concur. Is there now any formal reason why Protestants and catholics should disagree over the doctrine of justification?

I am quite familiar with the discussions that have occured between Rome and the Lutheran Church. However, to call the Joint Declaration a “huge milestone” is nothing but empty rhetoric, as, though we might have come to some sort of superficially linguistic agreement (“justification is by grace alone through faith” etc.), yet we have not, nor will we, come to any genuine doctrinal unity, as the words “justification”, “grace”, and “faith” all bear disimilar definitions to Roman and Lutheran churches (Furthermore, confessional Lutheran Churches, such as the LCMS, has been barred from any further “dialogue”, after having written and submitted a short assessment of the dialogues, calling them inadequate, and only establishing false unity through the equation of unlike definitions).

And so, Portrait, no, I do not concur.