I’m debating a PhD?!I just read your edited post - I’ll respond to it later today!
Yes, indeed.Two: I just checked out your profile.
Albeit not a PhD in theology, but in information science.
I think His sacrifice did more than just opening a door to Heaven. In fact, I don’t think the door to Heaven has ever been closed. It is stated in the Scriptures that nothing unclean can enter Heaven (Rev. 21:27) - “but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life”. So He died to take our sins upon Himself and cleanse us. Therefore the Scriptures also say that He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29). My favorite quote concerning the Gospel was formulated by the Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon:
By not only making it possible for us to be saved, but by truly saving us through His death, He is also truly our Savior.
God is in a sense flattering us, since there is no one good but Himself (Mark 10:18). But what is the Father’s will, according to Christ?
So we enter Heaven through faith in Christ, by grace rather than deservingly.
Yes, I fully understand what you are saying, but I also do not fully agree.
What I meant is that door has not been closed in the sense that no one could possibly enter Heaven (what about Enoch, Moses, and Elijah?). Conversely, unless you are a universalist, you do not believe that the opened door entails that everyone will enter Heaven.
And to that I would respond: that’s why we have the cross of Christ. His blood purifies us of all our sin (1 John 1:7). I also find no support in the Scriptures that suffering per se purifies us from sin. It was through the death of Christ that our sin was expiated.
Yes, and my beliefs go one step further: He did not merely make salvation possible through His death—He died to save His people. This is a point on which Catholicism and Reformed theology are very far from each other because my beliefs entail unconditional election and a denial of an entirely free human will.
But you apparently believe that your sins are put away by your efforts, albeit in cooperation with God’s grace. I believe that my sins were nailed to the cross of Christ.
Right, but I don’t think that Paul is saying that we are in the process of saving ourselves in cooperation with God’s grace. Ephesians 2:8 makes it clear that our salvation is a finished act (the perfect tense indicates precisely that). What I think that Paul is referring to in Phil. 2:12, preceded by an injunction to have the unselfish mindset of Christ, is that the seedling of salvation has been planted—now it is our responsibility to grow in our salvation (the process many Christians call sanctification).
Yes, but he also says that no one will be justified through the works of the Law (Rom. 3:20), thereby implying that no one will be considered “good enough” from the perspective of the Law. I think that Paul was attacking the potential self-righteousness of the Jews. It is not enough to possess the Law or listen to the Law—if you actually intend to be justified by the Law you need to keep it.
No problems—as a PhD, I’m used to synthesizing a multitude of thoughts.
He also stated that there is no one good except God, so unless He was contradicting Himself, He is actually flattering us. But the same goes for our justification before God—He justifies the ungodly who trust Him (Rom. 4:5), which means that He declares inherently unrighteous individuals righteous. Catholic apologists call this teaching “legal fiction”, whereas I call it the Gospel.
Love is, of course, an essential quality and God wants us to love one another. By loving one another, we show that we are His children. It is nonetheless the case that in the only instance in the Scriptures where the phrase “my Father’s will” is spelled out (John 6:39-40), it refers to the salvific will of the Father, and in particular His will that we should live by believing in His Son. Those who abide in Him by faith will also love.
Maybe you are talking past each other here.
Although misunderstandings frequently happen in discussions like this one, I am pretty sure that Michael16 was referencing Romans 2:13:
Now, Catholic apologists seem to be keen on using this verse to “show” that it is mandatory to keep the Law in order to be saved. However, in the larger context, Paul is more or less saying the opposite: we will not be justified by the Law, since it will always convict us of sin. In fact, Paul wrote an entire letter (Galatians) to refute the erroneous belief that we have to keep the Law for justification.
I searched this thread and found only your post reference Romans 2. :woman_shrugging:t2:
Well, that is one and the same Law. The commandment to love God with one’s entire heart, soul, and strength is found in the Torah (Deut. 6:5 to be precise), i.e., the Law given through Moses.
Michael16 wrote in a previous post:
That is a reference to Romans 2:13.
Not really, apart from the fact that there is no separate body of law in the Scriptures called “the law of love”. The Mosaic Law commands love (Lev. 19:18; Deut. 6:5), and so does the Gospel (e.g. John 15:12).
)This just doesn’t ring true the way you state it. I don’t agree that’s what they say. More like that’s what you hear.
That’s what I think they do. The proof is that they will claim that the ECF’s believe in say, Sola Fide. But, have you ever heard of a Sola Fide believer that says that Baptism is efficacious, that the Sacraments are valid, that one needs to confess to a priest, that works are necessary for salvation? No? Yet, all the ECF’s believe all those things and most of them are priests and Bishops who live in accordance with Catholic Teaching.
In my opinion, it goes much deeper than that. The Law was an instrument given to Israel, and the purpose of this instrument was to reveal sin. If anyone would actually be justified rather than condemned by the Law, it would mean that this person is inherently righteous rather than a sinner. But he also reasons that if it actually were possible for mankind to be justified through the Law, the salvific mission of Christ that culminated with the cross was superfluous.
He further argues that the impossibility of justification through the Law is due to our sinful nature. Rather than justifying us, it reveals our weakness (the limited space does not permit me to extensively quote the Bible, so I will just give the references: Rom. 3:20; 8:3; Gal. 3:10-12). So rather than saying that we have be righteous before the Law in order to be saved, he is saying that there are no shortcuts. The Law is not to be tricked. To possess the Law, or to merely listen to the Law (like the average “Sunday Christian”) will not make you justified - you have to keep it if you are relying on the Law for your justification. So being a Jew, hearing the Law being recited on a regular basis, does not give you an advantage.
This is music to the ears of the sinner plagued by despair: Christ offers me righteousness freely if I only receive His gift by faith!