Good point, Scylla. While there are some Protestants that believe OSAS, there are others that believe as you describe. Without the benefit of Sacred Tradition, they have no guidelines for differentiating sins that lead to spiritual death and those that don’t.
Nor was it what I believed when I was an Evangelical. Because Evangelicals are not a single denomination with a single profession of faith, I think it is more useful to discuss ideas (imputation vs. infusion) rather than generalize about Evangelical belief.I can’t speak for all evangelicals, but this is not what I believe nor is this what I have been taught by the churches I have been in. And I have in a few different churches (not because I shop around, but because I have moved around a lot and when I do look for a church in my community and there are many denominations where I feel comfortable and believe that Jesus is honored and the truth is taught). Anyway, we receive the righteousness of Christ which redeems our sins, and the Holy Spirit which reshapes us. The human soul is extremely valuable to God; that is why he sent his Son to die for us. I am afraid that was a gross distortion of what we believe. But I am not angry with you, we do a pretty good job a twisting what you believe as well.
), it is impossible to relate the beliefs of each and every Evangelical sect. All I can state is what I was taught when I was in the Evangelical camp, especially when my family became involved with a local Baptist church. What I stated is what they believed–no kidding.
This is an interesting topic, Della; however, I do not think what you have presented is a “worldview” issue, but rather a theological issue.
Well, what I mean by world view is how Catholics and Evangelicals see human nature and so how they see people. It certainly encompasses theology and has theological roots, but it has very practical results in our dealings with each other and the wider world, if you see what I mean.
I thiink this epitiomizes my point. Evangelicals that purport to agree on essentials often cannot even agree what those essentials are, not to mention the question of who decides what is essential or not.
I think it is.
Della, with all due respect, it cannot be said that “Evangelicalism in general teaches that human beings cannot actually become holy but must “accept Jesus” who covers them with his righteousness only.” I appreciate your earlier qualifying statements that your perspective is based on your own experience. But you subsequently make an untrue generalization again.
I hope this is the case since I was last in an Evangelical setting about 20 years ago–I truly do! It would mean that Evangelicals are moving closer to Catholic teaching. But, when I was amongst fellow Evangelicals years ago, they believed that their one time commitment made them completely sanctified with no further need for sanctification or personal growth except to “draw closer to Jesus.” If this has changed in a significant way, I rejoice to hear it.
You do not have to remind me that evangelicals disagree with each other. I am well-aware of it. Obviously, you think the solution to that is to let the catholic church decide these questions. Because I don’t see the RCC in the way that you do, it is to me no more than one other Christian denomination that disagrees with the other Christian denomination. It cannot for evangelicals settle issue unless it can defend it’s position with scripture. And I realize that the church tries to do this, and that’s a much better approach than, “we are the catholic church and we know better period.” Even if you are right, it doesn’t do much to persuade.
I was an Evangelical from 1980-2002. I’m not sure, Della, if that period overlaps the period you were Evangelical or not, but I think our differences in experience may have to do with our denominations.
Jimmy Akin would agree with me. In his book, The Salvation Controversy, he says, “Despite its name, the [Calvinist] doctrine of total depravity does not mean that men are always and only sinful. They claim that our free will has been injured by original sin to the point that unless God gives us special graces, we cannot free ourselves from sin and choose to serve Him out of charity. . . What would a Catholic think of this teaching? While he would not use the term total depravity to describe the doctrine, he would actually agree with it. . . Thomas Acquinas declared that special grace is necessary for man to do any supernaturally good act, to love God, to fulfill God’s commandments, to gain eternal life, to prepare for salvation, to rise from sin, to avoid sin, and to persevere.”
I totally agree. If the Catholic Church was based on that type of authority (which it is not) I wouldn’t be Catholic myself!
I think I understand what you’re saying.
Right-o.
Exactly! The concept of our cooperation with God’s grace is central to differentiating between Catholic and Calvinist views. That is a great passage.
I start out with disagreement.
Paul says the unregenerate are dead in trespass and sin, and are by nature, objects of God’s wrath. Christ’s sacrifice reconciles one to God, on the basis of belief, and gives the believer the ability once again not to sin. If one does not believe, then he remains dead in trespass and sin, and an object of wrath, and he can do nothing but sin.
Yes, but not all are as bad as they can be, and the main thrust of the Total corruption is the Total inability to reconcile oneself to God. IOW, an intermediary is need, and that is Christ.
The scripture does not talk of renewal, at first, but rebirth. In fact, Paul calls it a new creation—literally. So here one is created in Christ through faith. No one is worth saving, that is the amazing thing about it. It is God’s grace. Christ’s death on the cross, obliterates the guilt of sin for the one who believes; he does not come into judgment for his sin.
Here the difficulty is what is meant by holiness? Holiness is simply a setting apart to God. Same with sanctification. They share the same Gk root, one is a process—sanctification—one is a state—holiness. All believers are called to be holy, but will not achieve complete holiness until glorification; because of the flesh, the believer will sin.
Yes, when I showed my buddy the scriptural references for our understanding of the differences in sin, ie, the sins that wound and the sins that kill he became very thoughtful. There are times when he concedes that he’d probably be catholic if he didn’t believe in his calling as a minister. He’s married and sees the Church’s position on marriage within the priesthood a major roadblock to him becomming catholic. I’m half tempted to get him Scott Hann’s Book about his conversion.