Catholic Soteriology:Heresy?

[Insignificant]

I think mikeledes fails to understand the, Now/Not-yet tension in the new testament epistles. Also it is poor intepretation to take theology from analogy, your reading to much into the vine analogy.

 

[mikeledes]

If bill believed that some how becuase of his merit he was in heaven, he at all earned his way their, I would say he would be condemned to hell, because he has not accepted salvation offered through Christ entirely. Which is what the Gospel calls for.

The Cross of Christ pays the eternal price of our sins -something we could never pay for with our works - and liberates us from dominion to sin in order to become slaves of righteousness. Through the Cross of Christ, we freely receive the Holy Spirit which empowers us to do those works pleasing to God. With justification comes the **obligation ** to obey and serve God by LIVING a righteous life. Failure to fulfill this obligation will ultimately result in losing the free gift of justification. Please read Romans 2:6-7 and explain it to me.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[VociMike]

If bill believed that some how becuase of his merit he was in heaven, he at all earned his way their, I would say he would be condemned to hell, because he has not accepted salvation offered through Christ entirely. Which is what the Gospel calls for.

But you have changed the question. I never said that Bill believed he at all earned his way to heaven, I said that Bill believed what the Church teaches. These are not the same things by any means. If you disagree, show me where the Church teaches that one can earn salvation through good works. Or just save yourself the time, because there is no such teaching.

So, based on that correction, is your answer the same or different?

And just for fun, can you show me where, if Bill was part of some sect that did believe good works could earn salvation, this believe would condemn him to hell? That is, if he confessed Jesus, repented, was baptized and lived a life of good works, but believed he was earning his salvation, show me where that is a guaranteed ticket to hell.

 

[mikeledes]

I think mikeledes fails to understand the, Now/Not-yet tension in the new testament epistles. Also it is poor intepretation to take theology from analogy, your reading to much into the vine analogy.

As all of Jesus’s parables, this analogy, Insignificant, expresses a literal truth that contradicts your argument. I gave you the plain reading and interpretation of John 15.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Insignificant]

Becuase we are required to have faith in Christ, you said he confessed Christ, I am saying that if he confessed Christ then he doesn’t truly believe that he is meriting his way into heaven. and vice versa. I didn’t say that catholic’s actually believed that they entirely earned their way into heaven, but in the mind of Protestant’s they do, and thats why protestants argue about it so much. And also I would like to note that I am not here to offend anyone, I do admit that for the most part I am ignorant of the finer parts of Catholic doctrine, hence why i am here to clear up the confusion.

 

[kaycee]

Why is this an either/or situation? Why can’t works both be the result of salvation and requirements for salvation?

Council of Orange, 529 AD

CANON 18. That grace is not preceded by merit. Recompense is due to good works if they are performed; but grace, to which we have no claim, precedes them, to enable them to be done.

CANON 19. That a man can be saved only when God shows mercy. Human nature, even though it remained in that sound state in which it was created, could be no means save itself, without the assistance of the Creator; hence since man cannot safe- guard his salvation without the grace of God, which is a gift, how will he be able to restore what he has lost without the grace of God?

CANON 20. That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it.

Clearly the works are done after Salvation and are also gifts from God, not for MERIT.

 

[Flying_Bison]

Also, Catholics believe that Jesus has accomplished Salvation for all.

Ok, So, by his death on the Cross he gave ALL the ability to be saved. Before Jesus not all had the opportunity to be Saved.

Well, no we do.

How does Jesus tell us that this is accomplished. We must have faith in his message and ACT accordingly.

Jesus explicitly says that all who say “lord, Lord” are not Guaranteed salvation. So, who is. Those who have had faith and Jesus and acted accordingly.

What about such figures that have killed because of their faith in Jesus. Well, their faith is strong, but their action aren’t according to Jesus.

Also, what about one who sincerely believed in Jesus said he did in Church and 10 years later killed his wife. Well, murder is not advocated by Jesus a thus once saved always saved, either is a free ticket to sin or is not what Jesus intended.

And for those who say Paul believe is once saved always saved. This is absolutely false when all of his writtings are considered not simply a few lines. He equates his life to a “race” to finsh with his heart pure and his deeds pleasing to God. Also, in Romans he says one will be judged by his works. So, either paul contradicts himself, is lying, or is just plain ignorant we have to conclude that Once saved always save is erronous because their is other scripture and early Christian teaching that flat out denies this.

A whole of Truth must be based on all the evidence and none can contradict. That is what Catholicism is about the fullness of the faith no simply hanging our hat on one line in scripture or one idea as the be all and end all.

 

[Insignificant]

sorry mike i think you are reading to much into the parables, and not looking at scipture as a whole.

 

[mikeledes]

Paul clearly states in Galatians that “Neither circumcision or uncircumcision avails, but faith working through love.” Justification is only the first stage, the first installment of salvation. The final stage of slavation is glorification and that depends on faith working through love.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Insignificant]

given the context of that passage in Galatians i must disagree with you.

 

[mikeledes]

sorry mike i think you are reading to much into the parables, and not looking at scipture as a whole.

And I think the Sola Fide crowd are very selective of the passages they interpret and do not look at the whole Gospel. Can you provide an alternative interpretation, besides the obvious one?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[VociMike]

I didn’t say that catholic’s actually believed that they entirely earned their way into heaven, but in the mind of Protestant’s they do, and thats why protestants argue about it so much.

So true. Some Protestants spend incredible amounts of time arguing against something that the Catholic Church doesn’t even teach. Such a waste of energy!

And also I would like to note that I am not here to offend anyone, I do admit that for the most part I am ignorant of the finer parts of Catholic doctrine, hence why i am here to clear up the confusion.

Understood and appreciated.

 

[VociMike]

Council of Orange, 529 AD

CANON 18. That grace is not preceded by merit. Recompense is due to good works if they are performed; but grace, to which we have no claim, precedes them, to enable them to be done.

CANON 19. That a man can be saved only when God shows mercy. Human nature, even though it remained in that sound state in which it was created, could be no means save itself, without the assistance of the Creator; hence since man cannot safe- guard his salvation without the grace of God, which is a gift, how will he be able to restore what he has lost without the grace of God?

CANON 20. That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it.

Clearly the works are done after Salvation and are also gifts from God, not for MERIT.

Sure, we can do nothing without grace. Catholics believe this. But where in this do you find that good works, if one is capable of doing them, are not a requirement for salvation?

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

Next time, you may want to phrase your post differently. Try saying something like “it appears Catholics believe” in so and so. You do not know what Catholics believe as is obvious by your post. Here is the bottom line. The Catholic Church teaches that salvation is from God alone. No work performed merits salvation. We also believe that we are required to have faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. However, unlike some protestants, the Catholic Church makes it clear that ‘dead faith’ in Christ is not good enough. We must have an active faith, that is to say, faith working through love. This is the “works” of which you speak. We believe in active faith…walking the walk, not just talking the talk. Or, to put it another way, we believe that to have true faith, we must follow His commandmants. That requires action.

The funny thing is that one of the most die hard faith alone folks on this forum actually said to me once “of course you can’t just intellectually believe in Christ, you must have an active faith”. I said “that is what the Catholic Church teaches”. He was shocked.

Personally, I think the whole “faith plus works” slogan has kind of taken on a meaning that is incorrect. I prefer to say that the Church teaches active faith or faith that is alive in charity.

 

[Melchior]

I’m sorry, but once saved, always saved,
was unheard of by ANY Christian ANYWHERE in the world until Luther and Calvin thought it up by their private interpretation of the scriptures in the 16th century.
NO early Christians believed this and they explicitly believed that Christians by deadly sin could lose their salvation.
I refuse to believe that the Holy Spirit waited until the 16th Century to reveal the truth of this matter, and then revealed it
through the foul-mouthed Martin Luther and through John Calvin, who (prior to his Reformer days) had been arrested on a sodomy charge in his hometown, and escaped prosecution because his influential father went to bat for him.

If this belief were true, it would have been explicitly held and taught by at least a portion of Christians from the first century down to the sixteenth. There would have been debates about it all along. There was nothing. Nobody believed this, clergy, laity, theologians, nada.

God bless,
Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)

Luther did not believe in once saved always saved.

 

[Insignificant]

Hear ye, hear ye, I as a Protestant believe that good works are necassary for salvation. But that was never my questions, I don’t understand how(if they actually do) believe that works, to any degree, are at all the cause of our salvation or the justification. In contrast to the result of election.

 

[mikeledes]

Romans 2:6-10 (NIV)

6God "will give to each person according to what he has done."7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

John 5:28-29

**28"Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned. **

James 2:24

“You see that man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

Remaining incoporated in the Vine, and hence remaining saved, depends on bearing fruit. We will be judged ACCORDING TO OUR WORKS.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[VociMike]

Becuase we are required to have faith in Christ, you said he confessed Christ, I am saying that if he confessed Christ then he doesn’t truly believe that he is meriting his way into heaven. and vice versa.

This raises another interesting question. Suppose Tom (I’ve removed Bill the Catholic from this question since Bill believes what the Church teaches) truly believed that Jesus is Lord, and that salvation can only come through Jesus, but suppose Tom also believed, through his study of Scripture, that one must earn that salvation through Jesus. So Tom believes in Jesus but he misunderstands what Scriptures are saying. Does Tom go to hell because he misunderstood, even though he truly and deeply believed that Jesus is Lord?

It seems that Protestants require not only belief in Jesus, but a correct understanding of the mechanics of salvation, to enter heaven. But is understanding the mechanics of salvation really a heaven-or-hell issue?

 

[mikeledes]

Hear ye, hear ye, I as a Protestant believe that good works are necassary for salvation. But that was never my questions, I don’t understand how(if they actually do) believe that works, to any degree, are at all the cause of our salvation or the justification. In contrast to the result of election.

Works are the fruit of our justitication. We become righteous to live righteously. We don’t live righteously in order to be made righteous.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Melchior]

I’m sorry, but once saved, always saved,
was unheard of by ANY Christian ANYWHERE in the world until Luther and Calvin thought it up by their private interpretation of the scriptures in the 16th century.
NO early Christians believed this and they explicitly believed that Christians by deadly sin could lose their salvation.
I refuse to believe that the Holy Spirit waited until the 16th Century to reveal the truth of this matter, and then revealed it
through the foul-mouthed Martin Luther and through John Calvin, who (prior to his Reformer days) had been arrested on a sodomy charge in his hometown, and escaped prosecution because his influential father went to bat for him.

If this belief were true, it would have been explicitly held and taught by at least a portion of Christians from the first century down to the sixteenth. There would have been debates about it all along. There was nothing. Nobody believed this, clergy, laity, theologians, nada.

God bless,
Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)

You really should back up such slander. If you are going to make such a charge on Calvin, because you don’t like him you better provide some evidence. I could name a few Popes whose immoral lifestyles would make Hugh Heffner blush. Please just stick to the issues. Unsubstantiated charges of sodomy is not the type of stone any catholic should be throwing these days given substantiated charges against some clergy.