Free Grace Salvation

  • Thread starter Thread starter aidanbradypop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That poor penitent thief on the cross, I guess there was no hope for him after all. And think of all of those poor infants, who having been baptized for the remission of sins, subsequently die without having ever performed a good work.
He did, at the last minute he recognized the culpability of his sins and its punishment, and recognized who Christ was/is. And asked for Christ’s mercy. And it was granted to him.

I am positive you have had to admit and confess your own sins in confession, it is not an easy thing to do. In fact, it requires a lot of work. 👍
 
He did, at the last minute he recognized the culpability of his sins and its punishment, and recognized who Christ was/is. And asked for Christ’s mercy. And it was granted to him.

I am positive you have had to admit and confess your own sins in confession, it is not an easy thing to do. In fact, it requires a lot of work. 👍
That reminds me…I need to schedule one. lol 👍
 
Did Christ not die for Adam?
Not in the same manner for the same ultimate purpose as He died for the church. Question on doctrine; is it taught by the RCC that the OT saints are under the NT covenant?
We are sheep with free will. Christ is always there to rescue us, but he will not prevent us from running far away if that is our desire.
But that’s not what is taught. A sheep can get pretty lost, but the Shepherd goes and finds it. It helps when the Shepherd is God.
He waits with open arms for our return, but it is us that must return, just as the prodigal son did. The point is, the prodigal son did not have to return, he chose to return.
But even in the pig pen, the son was still a son. The prodigal son’s father didn’t disown him.
Whether you want to or not?
The sheep may not like what happens to it if it keeps trying to kick the Shepherd, but it is still the Shepherd’s sheep to deal with. Part of our initial repentance is acknowledging Jesus’ absolute supremacy in our lives, in effect, do we not turn ourselves over to Him? He is God after all. However, again, this only applies to actual sheep, not goats.
 
No, he wasn’t, not if we are talking about Jesus. Adam isn’t part of the New Covenant.

But who is responsible for keeping the sheep? If sheep were responsible for keeping themselves, then why have a shepherd?

No, not to save. I’m not a Calvinist, and I don’t believe in irresistible grace. However, once we are in Christ we are adopted children of God Himself and put into His care. I’m a daughter of God by adoption and God is the one doing the adopting. Once I’m a sheep in His fold, if I stray, He has the knowledge and the means to put me back in the flock, He does, even if I don’t, by hook or by crook.
He can certainly seek to draw you back, but, if we believe free will plays a role in salvation then we recognize He won’t* force* us into the sheepfold-or back into it if we’ve left.
 
He can certainly seek to draw you back, but, if we believe free will plays a role in salvation then we recognize He won’t* force* us into the sheepfold-or back into it if we’ve left.
Correct. There is no invisible electric fence. lol
 
He can certainly seek to draw you back, but, if we believe free will plays a role in salvation then we recognize He won’t* force* us into the sheepfold-or back into it if we’ve left.
I think there is an issue causing communication mishaps in this conversation; Many protestants, like me, believe that salvation is an event, and sanctification lasts a lifetime and it an ongoing process. Salvation is never forced.

And, most Shepherds do indeed force their sheep back into the fold, and even use their hook, crook, or dogs to do it.
 
I think there is an issue causing communication mishaps in this conversation; Many protestants, like me, believe that salvation is an event, and sanctification lasts a lifetime and it an ongoing process. Salvation is never forced.

And, most Shepherds do indeed force their sheep back into the fold, and even use their hook, crook, or dogs to do it.
It seems to me that thir are instances in which OSAS is a forced salvation. Lets say you have a 15 year old protestant child who accepts christ as their Lord and savior and repents of his sins and gets “saved”. Fast forward 10 years in that persons life and after many twists and turns in their life, they are now an enlightened atheist who now reject their christian belief. They are now engulfed in a life that is filled with sin. And completely rejects the teachings of christ. At the time of this persons death will this person be forced into his salvation kicking and screaming because he wholeheartedly rejects christ? Will God force him into heaven because at one time he accepted christ as his lord and savior in a one time event but rejected christ at the time of his death?
 
It seems to me that thir are instances in which OSAS is a forced salvation. Lets say you have a 15 year old protestant child who accepts christ as their Lord and savior and repents of his sins and gets “saved”. Fast forward 10 years in that persons life and after many twists and turns in their life, they are now an enlightened atheist who now reject their christian belief. They are now engulfed in a life that is filled with sin. And completely rejects the teachings of christ. At the time of this persons death will this person be forced into his salvation kicking and screaming because he wholeheartedly rejects christ? Will God force him into heaven because at one time he accepted christ as his lord and savior in a one time event but rejected christ at the time of his death?
Again, you are talking about apostasy, not committing an act or acts of sin such as lying, lusting, etc… As I’ve said, I’m open to the idea of apostasy in line with the act of Satan, that is something I’m still studying.
 
Not in the same manner for the same ultimate purpose as He died for the church. Question on doctrine; is it taught by the RCC that the OT saints are under the NT covenant?
In what manner did he die for Adam that was different then the manner in which he died for the rest of us? And what is the ultimate purpose of his suffering and death? Is it not redemption of all of mankind? I find your statement perplexing. Maybe you could explain further.
But that’s not what is taught. A sheep can get pretty lost, but the Shepherd goes and finds it. It helps when the Shepherd is God.
He goes to find each of us. He is constantly seeking us. But he does not bind us and throw us over his shoulder in order to save us. We must agree to be found and return to the shepherd.
But even in the pig pen, the son was still a son. The prodigal son’s father didn’t disown him.
Nor does our God disown us when we turn around (repent) and come back to his arms. But he allows us to remain apart from him if that is our choice. No one is more grieved by a soul that chooses hell then is our loving God who died for that person. The parable of the prodigal son would actually be better phrased as the parable of the forgiving father. That is the purpose of the parable; to show us the mercy of God, not to imply that we can never remain lost of our own volition.
The sheep may not like what happens to it if it keeps trying to kick the Shepherd, but it is still the Shepherd’s sheep to deal with. Part of our initial repentance is acknowledging Jesus’ absolute supremacy in our lives, in effect, do we not turn ourselves over to Him? He is God after all. However, again, this only applies to actual sheep, not goats.
What you are saying is that God then refuses to respect the free will with which we were created. You are saying that he indeed binds us, screaming and kicking, and throws us over his shoulder whether we like it or not. You may want to re-think this.

Blessings.

Steve
 
Again, you are talking about apostasy, not committing an act or acts of sin such as lying, lusting, etc… As I’ve said, I’m open to the idea of apostasy in line with the act of Satan, that is something I’m still studying.
If the above person in my example was “saved” at the age of 15 but now rejects the teachings of christ and the above person is now openly participating in adulterous relationships. As well as robbing his neighbor. Selling drugs. Participates in prostitution. He is a thief and a liar. He has rejected all of God’s commandments. He is happily living a sinful life and is in complete opposition to God. Will God force this person into salvation kicking and screaming because of his once saved always saved event at the age of 15?
 
In what manner did he die for Adam that was different then the manner in which he died for the rest of us? And what is the ultimate purpose of his suffering and death? Is it not redemption of all of mankind? I find your statement perplexing. Maybe you could explain further.
I would like this addressed via RC teaching so that I’m clear on what your belief is; does the RC teach that Adam is a part of the bride of Christ and under the new covenant?
He goes to find each of us. He is constantly seeking us. But he does not bind us and throw us over his shoulder in order to save us. We must agree to be found and return to the shepherd.
What does a shepherd do when he finds the lost sheep?
Nor does our God disown us when we turn around (repent) and come back to his arms.
Not quite; the son, even though he ran away was never disowned, even when walking away and envying pigs, those unclean beasts. God does not disown His children. We are now in the time of grace, and our situation is unique amongst all covenants.
But he allows us to remain apart from him if that is our choice. No one is more grieved by a soul that chooses hell then is our loving God who died for that person. The parable of the prodigal son would actually be better phrased as the parable of the forgiving father. That is the purpose of the parable; to show us the mercy of God, not to imply that we can never remain lost of our own volition.
What you are saying is that God then refuses to respect the free will with which we were created. You are saying that he indeed binds us, screaming and kicking, and throws us over his shoulder whether we like it or not. You may want to re-think this.
He does respect it. Again, what I see from scripture is that salvation is an event in time, not an ongoing process. God does not force anyone into salvation, and no sin can ever separate us. Apostasy is a deliberate turning away from faith with the knowledge of Truth firmly in mind.

Study what shepherds do with lost sheep, they don’t find it and then leave it to die in the wild.
Blessings.
Grace and Peace!
 
If the above person in my example was “saved” at the age of 15 but now **rejects the teachings of christ **and the above person is now openly participating in adulterous relationships. As well as robbing his neighbor. Selling drugs. Participates in prostitution. He is a thief and a liar. He has rejected all of God’s commandments. He is happily living a sinful life and is in complete opposition to God. Will God force this person into salvation kicking and screaming because of his once saved always saved event at the age of 15?
Again, this is apostasy… please reread my previous reply
 
This is an area too where I believe there can be some confusion, as several parables and phrases refer to sheep. From God’s perspective sheep are sheep and goats, goats. He knows which are which, and we are told Jesus’ sheep are those that respond to His voice. To follow the metaphors a sheep is always a sheep, and can’t become a goat, nor a goat a sheep.
I would agree. Let me explain my view. The sheep are the elect and will be saved because God has infallibly decreed he will save them. However, Catholics disagree with Calvinists because they do not believe there is a one-to-one correpondence between justification and election. You can be justified and fall away. So, from the Catholic perspective, when Calvinists stubbornly insist that some who falls away was never a “true Christian,” we are shaking with frustration. Someone can be justified and have true faith and be truly regenerate for a time, and then fall from grace. That person was a true Christian for a time.
If you don’t mind quote again the exact portion you see as stating the person or people in question were redeemed by the blood.
Sure. Look at the phrase “the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified” in v. 29. The covenant is evidently the New Covenant and the blood is evidently the blood of Christ. I would say (and I don’t think anyone would dispute it) that to be “sanctified by Christ’s blood” implies true regeneration.
 
I would like this addressed via RC teaching so that I’m clear on what your belief is; does the RC teach that Adam is a part of the bride of Christ and under the new covenant?
It was to Adam that God promised to send the Messiah. Anyone in heaven is a part of the Bride of Christ. If, indeed, Adam is in heaven (we don’t know that) then he is a part as well. After Christ died and before his resurrection, he descended to the abode of the dead to release the righteous that they may enter heaven. This would include Adam, Eve, and everyone who died prior to Christ’s redeeming sacrifice who were found righteous in the eyes of God. Christ’s sacrifice was for all men, not just those subsequent to his incarnation, death and resurrection.
What does a shepherd do when he finds the lost sheep?
Again, the imagery of a Shepherd is the image of our Savior and its purpose is to tell us about God, not about ourselves. He is not only a Shepherd, but the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd leaves the 99 to save the one. This is exactly what our Lord has done. He has given his very life and pursues us constantly, always knocking. The problem is, we must answer. He doesn’t break down our door and bind us and hall us off to our home. He knocks. He gives us an invitation. We must respond and if we do not he allows us to perish.
Not quite; the son, even though he ran away was never disowned, even when walking away and envying pigs, those unclean beasts. God does not disown His children. We are now in the time of grace, and our situation is unique amongst all covenants.
It has nothing to do with God disowning his children. It has to do with God’s children disowning him.
He does respect it. Again, what I see from scripture is that salvation is an event in time, not an ongoing process.
What was Paul taking about when he said we must persevere to the end? And where do you see in scripture that salvation is an event and not an ongoing process. I would agree that at the time of my Baptism I was saved. And when I committed my first mortal sin I lost that saving grace and had to repent and ask forgiveness. God is always ready and willing to grant that forgiveness, but I must ask for it.
God does not force anyone into salvation
True.
and no sin can ever separate us.
False. All sin separates us. Where do you find that no sin can ever separate us?
Apostasy is a deliberate turning away from faith with the knowledge of Truth firmly in mind.
So is murder, adultery, stealing, bearing false witness…
Study what shepherds do with lost sheep, they don’t find it and then leave it to die in the wild.
Study what happens to a sheep if it keeps running from the voice of his shepherd. It very often dies in the wild, even if the shepherd relentlessly pursues it, hoping it will respond to his voice.
 
I think there is an issue causing communication mishaps in this conversation; Many protestants, like me, believe that salvation is an event, and sanctification lasts a lifetime and it an ongoing process. Salvation is never forced.

And, most Shepherds do indeed force their sheep back into the fold, and even use their hook, crook, or dogs to do it.
So is it forced, in the case of the Good Shepard, or not? Catholics believe in any case that justification and sanctification are inseparable. God wants authentically righteous people, which He’s perfectly capable of creating, having made His creation in a “state of journeying” to perfection, as our catechism puts it.
 
Ok let me try this for a third time. Lets say someone who becomes “saved” in a one time event at the age of 15. Becomes a protestant minister. Lets say on the side he is having an affair with one of the members of the church. He is also a thief he is taking money from the church to strengthen his bank account. to cover his tracks he is telling multiple lies. He is an adulterer, thief, and liar who believes in God. He has no plans to turn away from sin because he is “saved.” The sex with the married woman feels good and he loves the extra money in his bank account. Is this mans behavior sinful or not? At the time of this mans death is this mans love for his sinful lifestyle compatible with living in heaven? Is his behavior a rejection of God’s commandments? Is his behavior in communion with God? Will God force someone kicking and screaming into heaven to live with him who does not desire to follow his commandments? Or is he saved no matter what because of a one time event?
 
I would agree. Let me explain my view. The sheep are the elect and will be saved because God has infallibly decreed he will save them. However, Catholics disagree with Calvinists because they do not believe there is a one-to-one correpondence between justification and election. You can be justified and fall away. So, from the Catholic perspective, when Calvinists stubbornly insist that some who falls away was never a “true Christian,” we are shaking with frustration. Someone can be justified and have true faith and be truly regenerate for a time, and then fall from grace. That person was a true Christian for a time.
And I think this is where I would fall somewhere in between the two views, I also believe Calvinists preach preservation of the Saints in a different manner than you or I would.
Sure. Look at the phrase “the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified” in v. 29. The covenant is evidently the New Covenant and the blood is evidently the blood of Christ. I would say (and I don’t think anyone would dispute it) that to be “sanctified by Christ’s blood” implies true regeneration.
Thank you for clarification! Many of us see this as referring directly to the Jewish people, since the letter is directed at Hebrews. It is much like the idea of the unbelieving spouse being sanctified by the believing spouse. Sanctified meaning set apart for God’s purposes. If looked at in the entire context and purpose of the letter, I’m not so sure about the interpretation that demands the pronoun in question refer to a believer proper. In fact, I’ve seen that pronoun translated as “them” as well, perhaps targeting a broader category of people.
 
The Orthodox doctrine of synergy is irrelevant because Catholics also teach synergy.
Does that remark not strike you as somewhat presumptuous? You cannot assume that the two are completely the same, just as one cannot assume that Lutheran and Calvinistic monergism are completely the same. The East has developed a doctrine of synergy primarily based on the understanding of St. Maximus the Confessor on the deification of man, which diverges from the Western tradition in maintaining a clear distinction between what pertains to nature and what pertains to hypostasis (that is what pertains to the manner of one’s existence).
Synergy is the whole point. If salvation is dependent on synergy, then salvation is dependent on works. There is the work of God and there is the work of man, and the two work together in harmony for man’s salvation. This includes repentance, which is an act (or work) of the will. If you want to re-define a work as “fasting, the giving of alms, and prayer,” that’s fine as long as you specify what you mean and do not attack others who define it differently because it’s not a very objective definition.
I must disagree. In the Eastern tradition, repentance is not considered a good work. That is why we distinguish between repentance and the fruits of repentance (both St. Mark of Ephesus and Dositheos make this distinction). Metanoia is not itself an act of the will but is a change in the manner (the tropos) of the will.
To use the word “work” as if it could only refer to external acts (such as feeding the poor) to the exclusion of internal ones is a misrepresentation of the faith-works controversy between Catholics and Protestants. The Protestant position is not faith is the only work that justifies us. The debate is rooted in the very nature of justification. Protestants say that justification is solely by the imputation of the alien righteousness of Christ, whereas Catholics say that God makes man formally just by the infusion of grace. Understood in that way, you can see that Protestants do not admit faith in any way as a basis of justification since our merits are not considered whatsoever.
And then Orthodoxy disagrees with both, because we cannot accept the decree of Trent that we are justified by a justice which is not God’s own. We do not believe in created grace.
It most certainly is a work of man if we speak in reference to the agent. The expression “work of God” in this context has the meaning of “godly work.” Recall that Christ’s answer is a response to the Jews’ question: “What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?” You are correct that man is moved to faith by God and could be called a work of God in that sense, and he communicates this truth elsewhere in the chapter (see v. 44), but it is not the intended meaning in this particular verse.
But faith, like repentance, is not an act of the will (in the sense that desire and choice are operations of the natural will), but rather it is reflective of tropos. It is only with a disposition of faith that our use of our natural human will and energy can be salvific.
 
Thank you for clarification! Many of us see this as referring directly to the Jewish people, since the letter is directed at Hebrews. It is much like the idea of the unbelieving spouse being sanctified by the believing spouse. Sanctified meaning set apart for God’s purposes. If looked at in the entire context and purpose of the letter, I’m not so sure about the interpretation that demands the pronoun in question refer to a believer proper. In fact, I’ve seen that pronoun translated as “them” as well, perhaps targeting a broader category of people.
It is directed to the Hebrews, but it is directed to Christian Hebrews. This is clear from his words. For example,

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

You are right that “sanctify” has a broad meaning, but it is clearly in reference to justification by the words “blood of the covenant.” We know also that this concerns the New Covenant, not the Old Covenant, because he is writing about Jews who were turning back to the Old Covenant, not despising it.
 
It was to Adam that God promised to send the Messiah. Anyone in heaven is a part of the Bride of Christ. If, indeed, Adam is in heaven (we don’t know that) then he is a part as well. After Christ died and before his resurrection, he descended to the abode of the dead to release the righteous that they may enter heaven. This would include Adam, Eve, and everyone who died prior to Christ’s redeeming sacrifice who were found righteous in the eyes of God. Christ’s sacrifice was for all men, not just those subsequent to his incarnation, death and resurrection.
Interesting, I didn’t know the RCC taught that. This explains some of our differences because protestants such as I don’t consider the OT saints as being part of the Bride of Christ or the church proper. Everything else you said is agreed; Christ’s death being efficacious for those in Abraham’s Bosom/Paradise, etc…
Again, the imagery of a Shepherd is the image of our Savior and its purpose is to tell us about God, not about ourselves.
I disagree, the image of the sheep fits us really quite well.
He is not only a Shepherd, but the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd leaves the 99 to save the one. This is exactly what our Lord has done. He has given his very life and pursues us constantly, always knocking. The problem is, we must answer. He doesn’t break down our door and bind us and hall us off to our home. He knocks. He gives us an invitation. We must respond and if we do not he allows us to perish.
But I see you describing the idea that if we let Him in and ask Him to stay and He says I’ll never leave you nor forsake you, that He doesn’t mean it, He may walk out again.
It has nothing to do with God disowning his children. It has to do with God’s children disowning him.
Apostasy would be declaring emancipation, as I said, I’m open to that. As you say, God doesn’t disown us. Why? Because it is Jesus’ righteousness that counts, not ours.
What was Paul taking about when he said we must persevere to the end? And where do you see in scripture that salvation is an event and not an ongoing process. I would agree that at the time of my Baptism I was saved. And when I committed my first mortal sin I lost that saving grace and had to repent and ask forgiveness. God is always ready and willing to grant that forgiveness, but I must ask for it.
So you have to be born again, and again, and again, or adopted disowned adopted disowned? I don’t see that. That would be like going from sheep to goat to sheep to goat with your hope being that you die a sheep not a goat, but no guarantee.
False. All sin separates us. Where do you find that no sin can ever separate us?
It’s a little more complex than that. John says a true regenerate believer cannot sin. Not will not sin, but cannot. How can that be; because again there are two things nailed to the cross with Christ; the Law and Sin. God had to do something so radical because a mere human always falls short when works are involved. Thence comes the heresy of sinning so that grace can abound, and I agree with Paul; God forbid!
So is murder, adultery, stealing, bearing false witness…
I don’t agree. The idea of Apostasy is very specific.
Study what happens to a sheep if it keeps running from the voice of his shepherd. It very often dies in the wild, even if the shepherd relentlessly pursues it, hoping it will respond to his voice.
Luckily for us our Good Shepard is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. However, I fully believe that God can take any sheep out of the picture should that become necessary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top