Grace/works/Salvation - Protestant disconnect?

[ErikaA]

ErikaA,

Perhaps you could clarify where it says that water baptism and baptis of sprit are not the same?

I was referring to Acts 8:15
“15 When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the HOly Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and the received the Holy Spirit.” NIV

Also, the thief on the cross as well as the admonitions to the Corinthian Church from Paul lead me to conclude that water and spirit baptism are not necessarily concurrent.

 

[Metaron]

This is an attempt to impose a foreign non-scriptural idea onto Catholicism.

What? No! This is what every Catholic I know has said! You’re the first one I’ve heard that says it’s works-based salvation. I’m sorry, maybe I’m reading into the Cathechism, but could you fully explain it to me?

 

[East_and_West]

I was referring to Acts 8:15
“15 When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the HOly Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and the received the Holy Spirit.” NIV

Also, the thief on the cross as well as the admonitions to the Corinthian Church from Paul lead me to conclude that water and spirit baptism are not necessarily concurrent.

This second manifestation of the Spirit is chrismation/confirmation.

 

[ErikaA]

This second manifestation of the Spirit is chrismation/confirmation.

Could you please elaborate on this? I don’t quite follow your point. Thank you.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

One question and I will hang up.

I know Catholics have a cow (as Bart Simpson would say) over the term “faith alone”.

Now other than the fact that it is a title and a title in itself is meaningless, my only other objection to the term would be if it is used as a cover for antinomianism (knowing that it does not necessarily have to be used that way). But that is a tangent and not my question.

If the phrase were changed to “living faith alone” would y’all still object to it? Would us Protestants?

No because “Faith Alone” to Protestants is short hand for something much deeper, it actually means “JUSTIFICATION by IMPUTED grace by Faith Alone”.

See these threads:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=165229
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=195446

 

[Publisher]

No because “Faith Alone” to Protestants is short hand for something much deeper, it actually means “JUSTIFICATION by IMPUTED grace by Faith Alone”.

See these threads:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=165229
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=195446

Actually not all Protestants believe in “imputed” grace alone…many of us understand it also as “imparted”. God begins His work in us and imparts grace, not to just make us “appear” as a holy people, but to “become” a holy people by the work of His Spirit within the believer…

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Actually not all Protestants believe in “imputed” grace…many of us understand it also as “imparted”. God begins His work in us and imparts grace, not to just make us “appear” as a holy people, but to “become” a holy people by the work of His Spirit within the believer…

You are correct, many of todays Protestant denominations dont believe in Imputed Righteousness…the fact is though that the Protestant Reformation was FOUNDED upon Imputed Righteousness, in other words that is what Luther believed and if he was wrong then the Protestant Reformation was in fact unwarranted rebellion and heresy (and thus the Catholic Church was right the whole time).

Any Protestants today who reject Imputation are actually heretics in the eyes of the original Reformers.

 

[bengal_fan]

Actually not all Protestants believe in “imputed” grace…many of us understand it also as “imparted”. God begins His work in us and imparts grace, not to just make us “appear” as a holy people, but to “become” a holy people by the work of His Spirit within the believer…

i would say many protestants don’t really believe in “imputed” grace. i would say it’s one of those things that Luther and Calvin (more Luther) taught that has since been (by many) … not rejected but revised. i would definitely fall more along the lines of infused grace (i believe that is the catholic stance as well). i have heard this taught by many protestants.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

i would say many protestants don’t really believe in “imputed” grace. i would say it’s one of those things that Luther and Calvin (more Luther) taught that has since been (by many) … not rejected but revised. i would definitely fall more along the lines of infused grace (i believe that is the catholic stance as well). i have heard this taught by many protestants.

You would actually be agreeing with what the Catholic Church has always taught then and at the same time condemning your own Reformation heroes.

 

[Publisher]

You are correct, many of todays Protestant denominations dont believe in Imputed Righteousness…the fact is though that the Protestant Reformation was FOUNDED upon Imputed Righteousness, in other words that is what Luther believed and if he was wrong then the Protestant Reformation was in fact unwarranted rebellion and heresy (and thus the Catholic Church was right the whole time).

Any Protestants today who reject Imputation are actually heretics in the eyes of the original Reformers.

Friends have always been branded “heretics”…I’m ok with it.

 

[bengal_fan]

You would actually be agreeing with what the Catholic Church has always taught then and at the same time condemning your own Reformation heroes.

not condemning, disagreeing. there is a difference. there are other points of theirs that i agree with and would disagree (not condemn) with the catholic church on.

 

[grandfather]

I am a Protestant but I struggle with the faith/works paradox that you are talking about. Let’s say I’m a prostitute who comes to a belief in Jesus as my Lord and Savior. If I am saved solely by faith and profess devotion to Christ, yet still work as a prostitute, am I really saved? A Protestant will say that if your life is characterized by sin, then you aren’t really a Christian. But if I’m saved by faith alone and we’re all sinners and all sin is the same, you can’t very well question my faith without impugning your own.

Does God overlook our sins? Is that what saving grace accomplishes for us? Do Protestants believe this? Luther made the analogy that we are like lumps of dung covered with snow. The snow is bright and beautiful and it covers the filth. Our sinful souls are covered by Christ’s blood, cloaked, so to speak, and God sees that instead of our sins and we walk into heaven (in costume?). This bolstered sola fide. In this view and his horse and rider analogy repentance is not necessary. The prostitute keeps her night job. No problem.

Everyone in Christ is a new creature, really new. This means grace does not cover us, but it transforms us, making us truly new, holy, remade, not simply given a fresh paint job. We are sanctified by being transformed in and by grace. If we look into our souls and see sinfulness, real evil, and not repentance and think we are saved we fool ourselves. There are two classes of people, penitent sinners and impenitent sinners. You can call Jesus lord, lord, but if you do not obey (love) Him what good is He to you. If we know we are sinful, in the state of sin, we need the means (grace) of conversion, not simply believing Jesus is who He claimed to be. If we do see personal unrepented sinfulness in our souls and we call out to God presistently He will hear us and have mercy. In His mercy He provides the means to live a grace filled life. The ordinary means of grace are the sacraments.

So what responsibility do I have in any of it? All help is appreciated in my dilemma here.

The responsibility we have, is to avail ourselves to the means God provides.

 

[mozart-250]

No because “Faith Alone” to Protestants is short hand for something much deeper, it actually means “JUSTIFICATION by IMPUTED grace by Faith Alone”.

I have absolutely no idea what the diffierence between imputed, infused, and imparted grace or whatever is.

All that I know is that when I came to Christ, He didn’t then turn around with a long list of rules that I had to keep before He would accept me. He took me just as I was. To me that is “Faith Alone”.

And no…I am not going to waste my time on a Faith Alone debate like I did on a Sola Scriptura debate.

 

[Publisher]

I have absolutely no idea what the diffierence between imputed, infused, and imparted grace or whatever is.

All that I know is that when I came to Christ, He didn’t then turn around with a long list of rules that I had to keep before He would accept me. He took me just as I was. To me that is “Faith Alone”.

And no…I am not going to waste my time on a Faith Alone debate like I did on a Sola Scriptura debate.

“Imputed” righteousness can be explained like this…when you stand before God and he looks at you…instead of “you” He sees Jesus standing in you place…God “sees” you as righteous because Jesus’ “righteousness” is imputed to you.

“Imparted” righteousness is seen in a “little” different way…when you stand before God and he looks at you, He sees you “scrubbed clean”…He sees “a new creature” created anew in His image. You are “righteous” not only because you share in Christs righteousness but because through Christ you are made righteous.

The former implies that you only 'appear" to be holy…the latter implies that through Christ, you are made holy by taking on His nature.

Somewhat simplistic, but that’s the gist.

 

[grandfather]

not condemning, disagreeing. there is a difference. there are other points of theirs that i agree with and would disagree (not condemn) with the catholic church on.

Quite a mish mash of picking which doctrines one accepts and rejects and maybe making up a few originals. What are the consequences of everyone picking and choosing from a doctrinal list what they want to believe? What are the consequences to the individual and to Christianity?

 

[grandfather]

All that I know is that when I came to Christ, He didn’t then turn around with a long list of rules that I had to keep before He would accept me. He took me just as I was. To me that is “Faith Alone”.

How do you know He took you? Did you repent of your sins? Jesus told His apostles to go to all the nations and preach repentance for forgiveness of sins. Jesus accepts us with our sins, but demands we repent of them. We have to ask ourselves if we are penitent or still in our sins. Jesus says to the pharisees that they search the scriptures thinking that in them they will find salvation, eternal life. Then He says: But I know the love of God is not in you. He is telling them they do not have enternal life, have not found it in scripture. Do you know any other group that thinks this way? We must love God to be saved. John writes that the love of God consists in this, that we keep the commandments. Why would anyone say repentance, obedience, love of God is not necessary to be saved, but that belief alone saves? The reason is they are impenitent and hope to be saved anyway.

 

[mozart-250]

“Imputed” righteousness can be explained like this…when you stand before God and he looks at you…instead of “you” He sees Jesus standing in you place…God “sees” you as righteous because Jesus’ “righteousness” is imputed to you.

“Imparted” righteousness is seen in a “little” different way…when you stand before God and he looks at you, He sees you “scrubbed clean”…He sees “a new creature” created anew in His image. You are “righteous” not only because you share in Christs righteousness but because through Christ you are made righteous.

The former implies that you only 'appear" to be holy…the latter implies that through Christ, you are made holy by taking on His nature.

Somewhat simplistic, but that’s the gist.

OK.

My next question is are these mutually exclusive? Why can’t it be both?

 

[ErikaA]

We must love God to be saved. John writes that the love of God consists in this, that we keep the commandments. Why would anyone say repentance, obedience, love of God is not necessary to be saved, but that belief alone saves? The reason is they are impenitent and hope to be saved anyway.

Don’t we all fail to keep the commandments everyday? When we’re angry with our neighbor or participate in gossip or envy another person for their material possessions? Don’t we all recognize these things as wrong and yet still feel the emotional tug to do them? Paul himself struggled with his sin nature. Thus, is the mark of loving God keeping the commandments or struggling to do so? Is moral purity the characteristic that defines the Christian life or is it struggle?

 

[Metaron]

OK.

My next question is are these mutually exclusive? Why can’t it be both?

It cannot be both, or that’d be a parodox.

Imputed, or declared, justification:

“We are like dunghills covered in snow.” (As Luther said.)

Infused, or actual, justification:

“We are made the pure snow.”

 

[Publisher]

It cannot be both, or that’d be a parodox.

Imputed, or declared, justification:

“We are like dunghills covered in snow.” (As Luther said.)

Infused, or actual, justification:

“We are made the pure snow.”

Agreed, in the former God “pretends” we are righteous, in the latter through Christ we are cleansed and made righteous anew as a New Creation.