Forensic Justification - what's your view about it?

[guanophore]

Back to the OP; I believe God saves us through the proclamation of Christ and Him crucified for sinners for peace and reconciliation with Him through preaching of the gospel.  When we receive this truth of the good news, I believe God credits or imputes the righteousness of Christ to our account and are saved and united to Christ by faith, and are eternally adopted into the family of God.

We are certainly brought to salvation through the hearing and belief in the Gospel. The Spirit of God quickens the heart, convicting the hearer of sins, and calls each to repentance. The Apostles taught, however, that we are united to Christ in baptism:

Rom 6:2-7
3 Do you not know that all of us who have been** baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?** 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin.

Baptism is a symbol of being “buried” with Christ, and when we come up from the waters of baptism, we rise to the resurrected life.

 I believe Catholic siblings are saved in the same way, when they believe in the good news of God.  We may disagree of the purpose of the sacrament of baptism, yet that does not change the truth of what God does and how He does it… for the purpose His glory and His good pleasure.  Faith does not save us, rather faith is the instrument God uses to flow the saving grace to us.

We are saved by grace, through faith, yes. The Apostles preached the Gospel, then baptized all who came to faith. Baptism replaces circumcision as the entrance rite into the New Testament. In baptism we are “circumcised without hands” (by the Holy Spirit") by whom we are sealed for the day of redemption.

And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. - 1 Corinthians 2:1-2

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.” – Rom 1

Paul was called as preacher and a teacher. This was his primary charism or vocation. It does not mean he did not do other things, such as healings, baptisms, eucharist, etc. Everyone who came to faith through his preaching was baptized because the Apostles never separated saving faith from baptism.

In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. - Ephesians 1:11-14

The Apostles taught that this “seal” is baptism.

1 Peter 3:17-22
18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

We know that the Apostle is talking about water baptism here because he compares it to the flood through which Noah was saved, and says that the purpose of this “bath” is not to remove dirt from the body. We know that no one can have a clear conscience toward God through anything we have done. So it is clear that it is the grace of God, working through the waters of baptism, that unites us to His death and resurrection.

Titus 3:4-8
but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by **the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured out upon us **richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.

The HS works through the waters of baptism to save us, like Noah was saved through the waters. In baptism, we are united to Him in death, and grace is “poured out upon us”. It is this Apostolic Teaching from which Reformed Protestants depart when they say that we are not actually infused with grace. This is another major departure from Apostolic Faith, that our salvation is not only “forensic” in that the legal bond against us is cancelled, but that the “reckoning” is not just doctoring the books. We are, in actually, washed, cleansed and regenerated, His grace poured out upon us.

 

[De_Maria]

Really, so every Protestant baptized in the Triune formula gets examined by the Catholic Church to determine if their baptism is valid prior to becoming Catholic.

Yes. Every person, Protestant or not.

If their Protestant baptism is not valid by the Catholic Church, then are you saying that Protestant was never united to Christ by faith?

The Spirit blows where it will. However, that Protestant does not know whether he is born again or not. Only in the Sacraments are we aware that the Spirit is working in us, because of the sign which signifies the action.

I think your position is incorrect,

See how that works. I was pretty certain you would disagree when I responded.

[qute]since it is clear that Protestants are considered separated brethrens even though we believe in a different intent of the sacrament of baptism. You can’t have your cake and eat it too my friend.

I’m not sure what that means.

1. All human kind are brethren. We all have one heavenly Father.
2. Christians who are born again in Baptism, are our brethren, united in Christ.
3. Christians, who deny that God works through Baptism, remain our brethren in the Father as the pagans and others do as well.
4. Separated brethren are they who do not accept the authority of the Church. Therefore we are separated. But they remain brethren, although imperfect.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

You have to understand that Protestants interpret that as the baptism done by the Spirit of God and not by the hands of men.

Baptism is done by the Spirit of God. It is God’s work:

2020 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us. It has for its goal the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life. It is the most excellent work of God’s mercy.

Let me find verses to help you understand the Protestant perspective.

I understand the Protestant perspective. I offer up Acts 9, St. Cornelius baptism. God showed St. Peter that He is not bound by His Sacraments. But that does not invalidate the power which God has vested in the Sacraments.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Christian_Unity]

We are certainly brought to salvation through the hearing and belief in the Gospel. The Spirit of God quickens the heart, convicting the hearer of sins, and calls each to repentance. The Apostles taught, however, that we are united to Christ in baptism:

Rom 6:2-7
3 Do you not know that all of us who have been** baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?** 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin.

Baptism is a symbol of being “buried” with Christ, and when we come up from the waters of baptism, we rise to the resurrected life.

We are saved by grace, through faith, yes. The Apostles preached the Gospel, then baptized all who came to faith. Baptism replaces circumcision as the entrance rite into the New Testament. In baptism we are “circumcised without hands” (by the Holy Spirit") by whom we are sealed for the day of redemption.

Paul was called as preacher and a teacher. This was his primary charism or vocation. It does not mean he did not do other things, such as healings, baptisms, eucharist, etc. Everyone who came to faith through his preaching was baptized because the Apostles never separated saving faith from baptism.

The Apostles taught that this “seal” is baptism.

1 Peter 3:17-22
18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

We know that the Apostle is talking about water baptism here because he compares it to the flood through which Noah was saved, and says that the purpose of this “bath” is not to remove dirt from the body. We know that no one can have a clear conscience toward God through anything we have done. So it is clear that it is the grace of God, working through the waters of baptism, that unites us to His death and resurrection.

Titus 3:4-8
but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by **the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured out upon us **richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.

The HS works through the waters of baptism to save us, like Noah was saved through the waters. In baptism, we are united to Him in death, and grace is “poured out upon us”. It is this Apostolic Teaching from which Reformed Protestants depart when they say that we are not actually infused with grace. This is another major departure from Apostolic Faith, that our salvation is not only “forensic” in that the legal bond against us is cancelled, but that the “reckoning” is not just doctoring the books. We are, in actually, washed, cleansed and regenerated, His grace poured out upon us.

Thank you:

For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. – Rom 2

We know all the Israelites partook in the sacrament of circumcision, yet not all Israelites belong to God. We know through Romans 9 through 11, God has His elect and God hardened the rest.

 

[De_Maria]

You have to understand that Protestants interpret that as the baptism done by the Spirit of God and not by the hands of men.

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is the basis of all Baptisms.

Let me find verses to help you understand the Protestant perspective. Do you consider circumcision an OT sacrament which regenerates?

No. There was no regeneration in the OT.

For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. – Rom 2

This has nothing to do with regeneration but everything to do with faith in God and obedience to do His will.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[guanophore]

I was aware of that tension with Lutherans, but did not realize Anglicans believed in baptismal regeneration. Is this belief for infant baptismal regeneration only, or do Lutherans and Anglicans believe in baptismal regeneration for adult converts too? It seems Luther’s belief of justification by faith alone does not fit together with adult baptismal regeneration.

I know the original Anglicans did, because they continued in the Apostolic faith. However, so many Anglicans are falling away from the faith progressively I think there are many that no longer hold this faith. I recently read a poll that Anglicans had fallen away from this part of the One Faith.

Why does it seem that justification by faith alone would contradict baptismal regeneration? I wonder if you have been taught that sacraments are “work” that humans do? Luther believed as the Catholic faith taught him that the sacraments are given in, by, and through God’s grace. Baptism is a gift of God that washes away our sins.

I might add that the creed says, “I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sin.” I interpreted your previous posts as rejecting this about Baptism, though I may have misunderstood.

Jon

I think that Reformed Christians, and most evangelical blible Christians have separated the baptism of the HS from the water. So when they read “one baptism” it translates into “once saved”, and has nothing to do with water. I learned about this separation here on CAF, and have always found it rather curious.

If the “One Baptism” refers to the moment a person hears the Gospel preached and is saved by it, then what is the water baptism that is usually received later as “public testimony”? This concept is also not anywhere in scripture as a purpose for getting baptized.

 

[Christian_Unity]

I think it is safe to say that we disagree agreeably on the sacrament of baptism. I do believe it is a means of sanctifying grace, but do not agree that it regenerates. It is hard to follow the Catholic view. If a person hears the gospel and receives it, are you trying to say that person is not united to Christ by faith until that person partakes in the sacrament of baptism? And if that person is not Catholic, does that person need to go to all of the training classes first prior to being baptized? And in addition, the Catholic Church reserves the right to determine if a Protestant baptism is valid, even though that Christian is not Catholic? Boy… the Catholic Church likes to try to control Christendom.

IMO… the key to becoming Catholic is to believe in apostolic succession Catholic version. If you can believe that, then you can believe everything else what the Catholic Church believes and teaches. If you reject apostolic sucession Catholic version, then so much of Catholic doctrine makes no biblcal sense.

 

[guanophore]

I think the normative way that God saves sinners is through the proclamation of the gospel.  Can God save sinners through other means such as infant baptism regeneration?  I believe He can, but I believe infants from believing households are already holy, sanctified, and clean according to Scripture (1 Cor 7).

Yes, God can save people however He wants. He chose to have us regenerated by baptism,but He is not bound by the sacrament. The reason that children are holy and sanctified is because they are baptized as infants. When Corinthians was written, the Church had already been practicing infant baptism for 20 years. As De Maria has accurately pointed out, the Church baptizes infants based on the faith of their parents. There has to be at least one parent who professes Cathoilc faith, and is willing to raise the child in the faith. The Church will not baptize infants or children unless this profession of faith and commitment is made. So when scripture says the children are saved on the basis of the believing parent, it means that the child was baptized through their faith.

For those who reject baptismal regeneration, it is incumbent upon them to explain why God alllowed the Church He founded to be in error for 1500 years until the Reformers came along. What happened to the powerful Jesus we see in the book of revelation?

Therefore, I do not believe baptism is necessary for infants who die in infancy based on God saving infants who die through the person and work of Christ apart from personal faith or baptism.

We entrust their souls to a faithful and merciful God This position of yours, though is not consistent with Reformed theology, which teaches that we are all either united to Adam, or to Christ. Everyone is born into the world united to Adam, and we know that those who do not become united to Christ are already going to perish.

I believe the one baptism in the creed and Ephesians 4 is the baptism done by the Spirit of God and not the one done by the hands of men.

Do you know why the Reformers separated this from water?

 

[SteveVH]

Let me try to untangle the mess. Here’s an explanation from L’Osservatore Romano which is reprinted on the EWTN website. I’ve emphasized the words which convey the meaning of what I have been trying to say.

*The most recent documents of the Catholic Church maintain the same teaching. The Code of Canon Law prescribes that those who have been baptized in non-Catholic ecclesial communities (**as long as there is no doubt regarding the matter or the form or the intention of the minister or of the person being baptized) *** should not be baptized again (cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 869 §2), …
ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm

As long as there is no doubt regarding…the intention of the minister or the person being baptized. If there is a doubt as to the intention of the minister or the person being baptized, then the baptism is considered invalid. Please note the word, “doubt”. That means that the true intention is not ascertained.

However, we have not, in this discussion been discussing a “doubt” about the intention to do what the Church does. But an intention which is clearly in opposition of the Church. The opposition to the Church is not in question.

I believe it has.

I disagree that the Catholic Church has set aside intention. If anyone can show me the document which you believe does so, I will appreciate it.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I don’t disagree with anything you said, however, in practice I have never known of a Protestant (Mormons and JW’s aside) who’s Baptism has not been accepted by the Church as valid, at least in the parishes in which I have been a member. Baptist baptisms have always been accepted and I know their intention is not the intention of the Church.

 

[jmcrae]

Protestants have two sacraments, and you have 7 sacraments. Therefore, the 5 additional sacraments are exclusive Catholic sacraments or maybe the Orthodox Church has seven sacraments too.

Sure, where does the grace of God flow from? If I believed the Catholic Chuch provided more sources of grace than Protestant churches, I would be Catholic.

It flows from the blood and water pouring out of the heart of Christ on the Cross.

 

[Christian_Unity]

It flows from the blood and water pouring out of the heart of Christ on the Cross.

I would say the grace of God was merited by the perfect life of Chrst in obeying the Father’s will on our behalf. I believe the death of cross merited our forgiveness, or is the payment of all our sins. So, the life and death of Christ is the cause of our grace in which we receive by faith. It may be dispensed to Catholics through the Catholic Church and her seven sacraments; howerver the sovereign sustaining grace of God is dispensed by God to us Protestants. We can disagree agreeably, because God is much larger than our own flavor of Christianity. I’m glad we have different ways to acess the grace of God; therefore, we wouldn’t be tempted to form a religious monopoly. Sometimes it seems the Cahtolic Church wants to own a Christian monopoly, or at least share part of her dominance with the Orthodox branch. I say live and let live, as long as all the glory goes to God alone through what He has done for us in Chirst.

 

[jmcrae]

I would say the grace of God was merited by the perfect life of Chrst in obeying the Father’s will on our behalf. I believe the death of cross merited our forgiveness, or is the payment of all our sins. So, the life and death of Christ is the cause of our grace in which we receive by faith. It may be dispensed to Catholics through the Catholic Church and her seven sacraments; howerver the sovereign sustaining grace of God is dispensed by God to us Protestants. We can disagree agreeably, because God is much larger than our own flavor of Christianity. I’m glad we have different ways to acess the grace of God; therefore, we wouldn’t be tempted to form a religious monopoly.

God has established the Sacraments of the Catholic Church as the normal means of receiving grace.

While I believe and hope that it is surely possible for graces to be transmitted “magically” through the air without the need of the Sacraments, one of the reasons I did become Catholic is that I realized that I, personally, am not so extraordinary as to merit that grace be given to me outside the rules that God has already set up - I am not that special.

It may be that you are that special, and it is my hope and prayer that you are - but in my own case, I had to ask myself - what if it should turn out that I am not that special? What then … ?

After all, according to the prophetic vision at Fatima, there are souls falling into Hell as thick as snowflakes in December, and many of them are way nicer people than me, for sure. So, rather than presume on God’s mercy and assume that I’m “special,” I find it more prudent to assume that I am nobody, and that I need to be one of the faceless masses who has to follow the rules that God has set in place.

 

[SteveVH]

I would say the grace of God was merited by the perfect life of Chrst in obeying the Father’s will on our behalf. I believe the death of cross merited our forgiveness, or is the payment of all our sins. So, the life and death of Christ is the cause of our grace in which we receive by faith. It may be dispensed to Catholics through the Catholic Church and her seven sacraments; howerver the sovereign sustaining grace of God is dispense by God to us Protestants. We can disagree agreeably, because God is much larger than our own flavor of Christianity. I’m glad we have different ways to acess the grace of God; therefore, we wouldn’t be tempted to form a religious monopoly.

You know, I can’t disagree with anything you said here. It just occurs to me that the approach taken with regard to whether or not one needs the sacraments depends often on the availability of those sacraments in a particular faith community.

My view is that this is very akin to someone looking in at a feast from the outside and deciding that their stale sandwich is enough to sustain them. The problem is that they are invited in to the feast. Yes, there is no doubt that God pours his grace out upon Protestants, but he didn’t institute the sacraments just for laughs. What grace are you receiving, and what grace are you not receiving? The Eucharist in itself is enough reason. Throw in Reconciliation and you will begin to know Christ in a way you never have before. The sacraments were not meant to be a “take or leave” option. They are gifts to us, channels of God’s grace and the means to salvation. Why would you not wish to partake?

 

[Christian_Unity]

God has established the Sacraments of the Catholic Church as the normal means of receiving grace.

While I believe and hope that it is surely possible for graces to be transmitted “magically” through the air without the need of the Sacraments, one of the reasons I did become Catholic is that I realized that I, personally, am not so extraordinary as to merit that grace be given to me outside the rules that God has already set up - I am not that special.

It may be that you are that special, and it is my hope and prayer that you are - but in my own case, I had to ask myself - what if it should turn out that I am not that special? What then … ?

After all, according to the prophetic vision at Fatima, there are souls falling into Hell as thick as snowflakes in December, and many of them are way nicer people than me, for sure. So, rather than presume on God’s mercy and assume that I’m “special,” I find it more prudent to assume that I am nobody, and that I need to be one of the faceless masses who has to follow the rules that God has set in place.

Do you believe the Word of God (Holy Bible) is also a means of grace? Do you believe hearing the gospel in different forms are a means of grace too?

 

[guanophore]

 I am not taking on the role of inquisitor.

Then by what authority have you pronouced the baptisms of Protestants “not valid” and assess that they have “no faith at all”.

 If I am appointing myself as an inquisitor because I explain the truth, what are you since you are ignoring the truth and teaching your errors.

Is it an error for me to say that it is beyond the purview of a lay apologist to declare Protestant baptisms “not valid”?

I didn’t come here because of your invitation. I came because the thread was not begun by you nor abide.

Howsoever you got here, you are here, and you have been able to hear from JonNC directly that not all Protestants believe in the same way.

THere are elements of the Sacred Tradition that have been retained among our separated brethren. Baptismal regeneration is one that has been retained by some.

 I'll give you a hint.  In order to better understand what the Church teaches, learn how the Church puts into practice its Teachings.  In this case, a study of RCIA might help you immensely.

Sincerely,

De Maria

You are right on about this. My years in RCIA have helped me learn more about my faith than 10 years of CCD when I was a youth!

That experience has also taught me that the church baptizes conditionally when there is not birth certificate because it is possible that the person DID have a valid baptism.

 

[guanophore]

  For the record, I believe God normatively saves sinners through the proclamation of the gospel. Yet, I do not deny that God can and does regenerate through the sacrament of baptism.

Thank you for clarifying that CU. I can see why you might be a pariah in a Reformed community. Some of your ideas are frightenly Catholic!

Maybe that makes me a half of a heretic, or I am half saved?

LOL :dancing:

No, I think being a heretic is kinda like being pregnant. You either are or ya aren’t . Anyway, you can’t qualify as a heretic, because one must have first embraced the Apostolic view, then willfully and knowingly depart from it. Persons who have been reared in Protestant communities have often never heard the fullness of the Truth as it was passed down to us from the Apostles.

On the other hand Catholics would affirm that you are “half saved” in a sense, because the Apostles taught us that there are elements of salvation that are completed, like being joined to His death in baptism, elements that we are still working out in this life, and elements that will not be completed until the end of this life.

 

[guanophore]

I said that denying that Christ can work through Baptism is no kind of faith.  It is a rejection of faith.

This is your personal opinion, and you certainly have a right to it, as they are as common as the human navel. However, the Catechism seems to reflect a different view:

819 "Furthermore,** many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found** outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

You and I have had this arguement before, where I side with the Catechism in that may elements of sanctification and truth (Sacred Tradition) are found in Protestant churches. For you, Protestants having a different understanding of baptism have “no faith at all”. Yet, the church believes that there are elements of faith among those who believe differently than you do.

You are twisting the word of the Catechism to justify your claim.

I hope not!

It is not faith to deny Christ’s vivifying power in Baptism.

Certainly it falls short of the fullness of faith handed down to us by the Apostles. That is why I say they stand in the tradition of Apollos.

Acts 18:24-27

24 Now a Jew named Apol’los, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, well versed in the scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and Aq’uila heard him, they took him and expounded to him the way of God more accurately.

Many Protestants are well versed in the Scriptures, fervent, and committed, yet lack the fullness of instruction. They neeed to understand the way of God more accurately. Telling them the parts of the Truth they have are not valid or that they have “no faith” would be like Priscilla and Acquila criticizing what he had right, instead of educating him on the part he was lacking.

 

[jmcrae]

Do you believe the Word of God (Holy Bible) is also a means of grace? Do you believe hearing the gospel in different forms are a means of grace too?

Not in the same sense that the Sacraments give grace, since it seems to me that one must be in a state of grace in order to hear and correctly understand the Scriptures - there are many who twist the meaning, to their own destruction - and a person who is not in a state of grace can easily turn to a way that seems right in his own eyes, instead of to God’s way.

 

[KathleenGee]

Christian Unity,

Post 226 answers your question…Paul came to bring the Gentiles to Christ. That phrase does not imply that he did not baptize either.

 

[Christian_Unity]

On the other hand Catholics would affirm that you are “half saved” in a sense, because the Apostles taught us that there are elements of salvation that are completed, like being joined to His death in baptism, elements that we are still working out in this life, and elements that will not be completed until the end of this life.

I guess I should take the label of being “half saved” on a Catholic Forum site, considering it is hersey by Catholic theology to boast that you 100% saved. If I’m half saved, Catholics are maybe 33% saved since we Protestants have greater assurance than you based on a forensic justification belief.