Grace/works/Salvation - Protestant disconnect?

[grandfather]

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?

Hi Erika,

All do not all fail to keep the commandments. Most do. This is why Jesus said the path to salvation is narrow and few manage to take it, vs the broad way to perdition that many take. Holiness is possible. Jesus commanded us to “Be holy (perfect) even as your heavenly father is holy.” It was not a suggestion. If it is impossible then Jesus commanded the impossible, which would make Him unjust.

Sometimes anger is sinful and gossip and envy are always sinful. Don’t do these things. We do get tempted, but temptation is not sin. The mark of loving God is keeping the commandments AND struggling to do so. Moral purity is required of us AND it is a struggle.

It is impossible to love and obey God UNLESS He helps us. This help we call grace. If He helps us we are able to conquer sin. If we see ourselves as failing to love God and in sin, this does not prove it impossible to conquer sin. It only means we have not yet gotten there. We have three choices. Tell ourselves love and obedience are impossible, and lie to ourselves. Give up in despair of ever conquering sin. Hope in God and persistently call on Him to save us. The sacraments are the indispensible means of grace God gives us in the Church. This is what all the saints who have gone before us and conquered tell us. Jesus says He gives a crown to the one who overcomes. Overcomes what?

 

[Bible_Believer]

hi Thessalonian, and all…I fully believed I am saved by grace thru faith in Jesus Christ…Eph 2:8-9 tells us that we are not saved by works, but by faith. However…I agree with you to a point about works…I should not get saved and continue a life of sin and not change. Works is not what will GET me to heaven, but because I have accepted Christ…I WANT to do good works as a result of my salvation. There are many Christians who do use God’s grace as a license to sin… that is not right either. I know I will not lose my salvation when I sin, but I daily confess them to Jesus Christ, who is my high priest. There are of course, consequences of living a sinful life after you are saved.
God bless you and have a great day!

 

[mozart-250]

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.”

Are you sure? I’m trying to think logically here…since I am not really familiar with the terms here…

But it just seems to me (leaving aside the Luther quote for now) that imputed justification is a subset of infused justification.

In other words if we are actually made just, then we of course are declared just. So in that sense you have both.

Now I suppose it also is possible to believe that you are declared just without being made just also, but I just don’t see that a belief that you are declared just necessarily means that you are not made just also.

I will leave it to the Lutheran’s to tell me what Luther believed. You can tell me what you believe…fair enough…

My inclination is to believe both are true actually. But a question…when you say that we are made just, does that mean we are made sinless? What do you mean made just?

 

[bengal_fan]

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?

i’ve got to be true to the things i believe. i believe them because of personal experience, deep study, and the history of what’s been passed down. when i combine the three, i come to the conclusions i come to and i cannot not be true to those. however, i am always willing to convinced otherwise. and i have had my mind changed on things. i am not infallible, nor are any of us so we must always be willing to admit that we may be wrong. but we also must be true to those things we believe are true.

 

[Metaron]

Are you sure? I’m trying to think logically here…since I am not really familiar with the terms here…

But it just seems to me (leaving aside the Luther quote for now) that imputed justification is a subset of infused justification.

In other words if we are actually made just, then we of course are declared just. So in that sense you have both.

Now I suppose it also is possible to believe that you are declared just without being made just also, but I just don’t see that a belief that you are declared just necessarily means that you are not made just also.

I will leave it to the Lutheran’s to tell me what Luther believed. You can tell me what you believe…fair enough…

My inclination is to believe both are true actually. But a question…when you say that we are made just, does that mean we are made sinless? What do you mean made just?

Full sanctification (to use Protestant term) once, it occurs, means that one would no longer have any attachment or even longing for sin; it would mean completely free from personal sin (and, by default, original sin). If sanctification is not completed upon death, then the process is continued in Purgatory; but this is another issue, and we need not discuss it here. It would go off-topic.

 

[grandfather]

i i am not infallible, nor are any of us so we must always be willing to admit that we may be wrong. but we also must be true to those things we believe are true.

Jesus said He would lead His Church into all truth. It is important that the doctrines we believe are true. Believing false doctrine has severe consequences. How are we to know whether we are right or wrong about our doctrines? His Church has His promises, but there are many versions. They cannot all be true. We do need some infallible means of knowing truth if we are to know it. It can not be scripture or everyone would read it and agree. The opposite happens. You are not infallible, but you are relying on yourself.

Years ago a Baptist minister got in an argument with me. There I was minding my own business at a company party drinking a beer. He struck up a conversation and asked me about pro life work I did. He said that he could not see for sure that before a woman was pregnant for three months that the baby was a baby. He said he had counciled young women in his church that it was ok for them to have abortions. I was horrified. I asked him if he was in his car and ready to back out of the driveway and thought he might have seen a flash in the rearview mirror that might have been a child, but he was not sure, would he hit the gas or play it safe. He asked me how I knew the unborn are babies. Again horrified I thought they are not tuna fish, but I said it is a matter of truth. He asked me how I knew what was true and I knew I could not argue from the Bible, because he read it and did not come to that conclusion. I said my Church teaches truth. He said sarcastically, no YOUR Church teaches truth. I said, right. He said, no your Church says it teaches truth. I said, correct. He said no, your Church thinks it teaches truth. I said, correct. He got angry and said it was arrogant to think you know the truth. I said, wonderful, you are not sure if an 89 day old unborn baby is a baby, you admit you don’t know, and you admit you do not have true doctrine, and you council girls to abort their babies. You say you are a shepherd of souls and you say you don’t know what truth is. Why should anyone listen toyou? You admit some of your doctrines are not true, so which ones are they. He looked at me like I was an idiot and said if he knew he would not believe them, but no Church’s doctrines are all true and thinking otherwise is arrogant. I said if you do not know which of your doctrines are false then neither do you know which are true.

Do you see why we need infallibilty. Without it we are guessing. You are giving it your best guess and might be right or wrong. It is a matter of life and death.

 

[mozart-250]

Full sanctification (to use Protestant term) once, it occurs, means that one would no longer have any attachment or even longing for sin; it would mean completely free from personal sin (and, by default, original sin). If sanctification is not completed upon death, then the process is continued in Purgatory; but this is another issue, and we need not discuss it here. It would go off-topic.

OK…so when Catholics say they are made just it is not the same as being made sinless. Thought so. Good. At first glance that would be my only objection to infused justification.

My reason behind thinking that they are not incompatible is that I can think of Scriptures that teach both. And I have heard both taught from the pulpit, just not using the technical terms.

Infused to me would be what happens at regeneration (the indwelling of the Holy Spirit…being made a new creation in Christ) etc. One might argue this is not justification, but it happens at the same time so that seems nitpicky to me.

Imputed to me is Christ taking my sins upon the cross, tasting death that I might not taste death.

And we both agree that infused is not being made sinless. So I really don’t see what the big deal is here. I think we agree.

Now if one says that all that happens at regeneration is some legal transaction without a life changing transforming experience, I would think that would be a problem. The Bible clearly teaches there is more at regeneration than that.

Yes and how we are transformed from still having a propensity to sin in this life to absolutely sinless in the next life (whether it happens automatically at death or whether there is something more) is a separate issue and of lesser importance to me.

 

[DLC]

I think you do not understand sin, grace, and sanctification. Grace does over look sin and grace never did include sanctification. Look at what the says.
Rom 11:6
6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.
NASU
To mix works or sanctification to grace nullifies grace.

1 John 1:8-10
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.
NASU

To say that grace over looks sin goes against 1 John.
Eph 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
NASU

Works and grace do not mis for salvation as seen here in Eph 2.

Please remember that there are two aspects of sanctification. Positional which occurs at salvation in that we are by the fact of being in Christ at salvation, set aprt to God positionally. Then there is practical sanctification is which God tells us in Philippians 1:6 to work out or demonstrate our salvation. This is practical sanctification in that we are being set apart more and more to God every day as we obey His Word.

 

[bengal_fan]

Jesus said He would lead His Church into all truth. It is important that the doctrines we believe are true. Believing false doctrine has severe consequences. How are we to know whether we are right or wrong about our doctrines? His Church has His promises, but there are many versions. They cannot all be true. We do need some infallible means of knowing truth if we are to know it. It can not be scripture or everyone would read it and agree. The opposite happens. You are not infallible, but you are relying on yourself.

Jesus never said He would lead His “church” into all truth, He said the the Spirit would lead them (His followers) into all truth. now, in your interpretation, you say it’s the church (and you are relying on the church’s interpretation for this) that He is ultimately speaking to, but it could also be interpreted as Him speaking to individuals. other passages speak of all believers having the Spirit. i would say you are partially right in that i am relying on myself, but i would also say that i am relying on Jesus’ promise that those who seek will find and i am seeking. the bottom line is that if i am not convinced (or if i have not been given the grace to believe the truth) then i must keep seeking and i must follow the truth i (at least i think) i know. you do the same thing. you believe that the catholic church is to whom that promise was given. YOU believe it. ultimately you are relying on yourself as well. your reliance on yourself leads you to place your faith in the catholic church and you must be true to that.

i agree that ultimately there is one truth. there is only two options: either some one is right and everyone else is wrong or everyone has it wrong. ultimately we will be called before the Lord on our own. we will have to give an account. my belief is that as long as we humbly, genuinely sought after Him, even if we didn’t have everything right, He will honor that. so many examples in the Bible show that this is how Jesus dealt with people.

 

[ErikaA]

Jesus never said He would lead His “church” into all truth, He said the the Spirit would lead them (His followers) into all truth. now, in your interpretation, you say it’s the church (and you are relying on the church’s interpretation for this) that He is ultimately speaking to, but it could also be interpreted as Him speaking to individuals. other passages speak of all believers having the Spirit. i would say you are partially right in that i am relying on myself, but i would also say that i am relying on Jesus’ promise that those who seek will find and i am seeking. the bottom line is that if i am not convinced (or if i have not been given the grace to believe the truth) then i must keep seeking and i must follow the truth i (at least i think) i know. you do the same thing. you believe that the catholic church is to whom that promise was given. YOU believe it. ultimately you are relying on yourself as well. your reliance on yourself leads you to place your faith in the catholic church and you must be true to that.

i agree that ultimately there is one truth. there is only two options: either some one is right and everyone else is wrong or everyone has it wrong. ultimately we will be called before the Lord on our own. we will have to give an account. my belief is that as long as we humbly, genuinely sought after Him, even if we didn’t have everything right, He will honor that. so many examples in the Bible show that this is how Jesus dealt with people.

I understand your thinking because I often share it. This is a form of antinomianism as I see it and I don’t know if that is consistent with Jesus’s teaching concering the Law itself. To avoid “Legalism” all truth becomes subjective and no behavior is wrong if I decide it’s right. I slip into this same thinking myself and yet intuitively I sense it is dangerous. It is important to remember that Jesus never judges the Pharisees for following the Law, but rather for their motivation in doing so. What he repudiates is the spiritual pride that underlies their actions (i.e. they follow to justify and glorify themselves among men).

You believe the RCC does not have the Truth and so you follow your conscience. However, are you certain that your conscience is dictated by God?

Bonhoeffer says that if discipleship costs you nothing, you aren’t much of a disciple. This man died for this conviction (and he was a Lutheran).

Don’t take any offense to this. I write this as much to myself as anyone else.

 

[Metaron]

OK…so when Catholics say they are made just it is not the same as being made sinless. Thought so. Good. At first glance that would be my only objection to infused justification.

My reason behind thinking that they are not incompatible is that I can think of Scriptures that teach both. And I have heard both taught from the pulpit, just not using the technical terms.

Infused to me would be what happens at regeneration (the indwelling of the Holy Spirit…being made a new creation in Christ) etc. One might argue this is not justification, but it happens at the same time so that seems nitpicky to me.

Imputed to me is Christ taking my sins upon the cross, tasting death that I might not taste death.

And we both agree that infused is not being made sinless. So I really don’t see what the big deal is here. I think we agree.

Now if one says that all that happens at regeneration is some legal transaction without a life changing transforming experience, I would think that would be a problem. The Bible clearly teaches there is more at regeneration than that.

Yes and how we are transformed from still having a propensity to sin in this life to absolutely sinless in the next life (whether it happens automatically at death or whether there is something more) is a separate issue and of lesser importance to me.

Yes, I see your point. It’s a minor point, anyway, between infused and imputed justification. Mozart-250, you bring interesting and thoughtful dialogue to these threads. Do not abandon them. We want to hear your side.

 

[East_and_West]

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?

I am not saying our faith is works based at all. The basis of our salvations is God’s grace. But just as St. Augustine (protestants’ favorite Church Father) states that although God who created us without us, will not save us without us. The Catholic idea of salvation is the Augustinian one. We must PARTICIPATE in God’s grace to be saved. We must believe, do good works, and receive the sacraments. This does not mean we earn our salvation or that we ever deserve it. It just means we have to participate with God and his grace in order to recieve it.

I like to compare it to when i recieved my first car from my parents. When i was sixteen years old my parents bought me a vehilce for my birthday. They would not have done this if i was a rebellious or generally bad kid. They told me that because I tried my best they were happy to buy me the vehilce. Now my good behavior gave me not strict claim to that car. I did not earn it or deserve it just because I was a good kid. It was a total act of generosity on the part of my parents. However, they would not have acted in such a way if I had been a bad kid.
Likewise, our salvation is a total act of generosity on God’s part. Nothing we do can give us a strict claim to salvatin. However, if we are not trying, he will not give it to us.

 

[Metaron]

I am not saying our faith is works based at all. The basis of our salvations is God’s grace. But just as St. Augustine (protestants’ favorite Church Father) states that although God who created us without us, will not save us without us. The Catholic idea of salvation is the Augustinian one. We must PARTICIPATE in God’s grace to be saved. We must believe, do good works, and receive the sacraments. This does not mean we earn our salvation or that we ever deserve it. It just means we have to participate with God and his grace in order to recieve it.

I like to compare it to when i recieved my first car from my parents. When i was sixteen years old my parents bought me a vehilce for my birthday. They would not have done this if i was a rebellious or generally bad kid. They told me that because I tried my best they were happy to buy me the vehilce. Now my good behavior gave me not strict claim to that car. I did not earn it or deserve it just because I was a good kid. It was a total act of generosity on the part of my parents. However, they would not have acted in such a way if I had been a bad kid.
Likewise, our salvation is a total act of generosity on God’s part. Nothing we do can give us a strict claim to salvatin. However, if we are not trying, he will not give it to us.

:newidea: Oooh… I get it… good explaination…

That is what I was trying to say, I just left the *Grace Alone *aspect out because Protestants and Catholics agree on this.

 

[whatisthetruth]

Bump

Hi all,

From reading this thread, I can see there is a lot of opinions on the subject matter “If you died right now, are you 100% sure you would go to Heaven”

How awesome would it be to know for sure that heaven’s door is waiting for you?

vs.

Going through life and not being 100 % sure where you will be spending eternity

I do not know about you, but if there was a way, I would want to know about it, wouldn’t you?

The bible does give a way…

**Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life:no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6 **

The bible also says

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Rom 3:23

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Eph 2:8-9

…the gift of God is eternal life. Rom 6:23

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life." 1John 5:13

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Rom 10:9

Isn’t God saying I love you all and I have a wonderful gift for you?

His gift…

"…For by grace are ye saved through faith;… gift of God:…Eph 2:8-9
“…thou shalt be saved.” Rom 10:9
“…may know that ye have eternal life.” 1John 5:13
“…have everlasting life.” John3:16
“…eternal life.” Rom 6:23

Isn’t it now our choice to
believe it or not believe it?
accept His gift or reject His gift?

I posted below a link to a youtube video from a youth conference which addresses this issue head on. The speaker is Pastor Paul Washer. director of Heart Cry Missionary Society.

The video, from opening to closing prayer is 60 mins in length. Leave yourself time to view it. I heard every second of the video and it was worth every second.

Paul’s message changed the way I now look at salvation.

Paul Washer
youtube.com/watch?v=uuabITeO4l8

In doing research, I came accross a written sermon on salvation given by Charles Sturgeon, a Baptist minister.

Charles Sturgeon
spurgeon.org/sermons/1516.htm

I look forward to your feedbback

Truth

 

[Catholic_Dude]

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

ROFL!

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.

But you have to realize how serious this specific issue is. Luther said the issue of Justification by Imputation was “the doctrine by which the church stands or falls”. This justification issue isnt a minor disagreement or even semantics between Catholics and the Reformers, it is a very real substantive distinction. One side is in grave error and it each side must condemn what they see as grave error.

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.

Trust me, this issue is so huge that Im amazed it isnt talked about more often. This is NOT about “faith” vs “faith + works” it is much more than that, it touches upon the very moral integrity of God.

OK…so when Catholics say they are made just it is not the same as being made sinless. Thought so. Good. At first glance that would be my only objection to infused justification.

Actually yes, being made righteous means your sins have been forgiven and your soul made pure.
HOWEVER we can still sin and thus through grave sin make our souls unrighteous again. Because of our fallen nature we still have the “urge” to sin but this urge/temptation is NOT the same as sin (James 1:13-15).

My reason behind thinking that they are not incompatible is that I can think of Scriptures that teach both. And I have heard both taught from the pulpit, just not using the technical terms.

It is not just a matter of teaching both, but a matter of “ORDER of events”. The original Protestants taught God could declare you righteous EVEN THOUGH your soul was unrighteous AFTER this then Protestants teach sanctification starts. Catholics (and the Bible) teach God only declares righteous those whom were ALREADY made righteous by His infused grace.

Infused to me would be what happens at regeneration (the indwelling of the Holy Spirit…being made a new creation in Christ) etc. One might argue this is not justification, but it happens at the same time so that seems nitpicky to me.

What you describe technically takes place immediately BEFORE justification which is what Catholics teach, but the original Protestants REJECT this. I assure you this is not “nitpicky”.

Imputed to me is Christ taking my sins upon the cross, tasting death that I might not taste death.

Imputed Righteousness is what the original Protestants taught and it means Christ acts like a clean bed sheet which is thrown over and covers you, a pile of dung, so that you “appear” clean/righteous.

And we both agree that infused is not being made sinless. So I really don’t see what the big deal is here. I think we agree.

Actually we disagree here.

Now if one says that all that happens at regeneration is some legal transaction without a life changing transforming experience, I would think that would be a problem. The Bible clearly teaches there is more at regeneration than that.

Thats why the Catholic Church condemned Luther’s heresies.

 

[Metaron]

I think your misrepresenting the Catholic view…

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Hi all,

From reading this thread, I can see there is a lot of opinions on the subject matter “If you died right now, are you 100% sure you would go to Heaven”

How awesome would it be to know for sure that heaven’s door is waiting for you?

vs.

Going through life and not being 100 % sure where you will be spending eternity

I do not know about you, but if there was a way, I would want to know about it, wouldn’t you?

The bible does give a way…

The Bible never teaches you can be “100% sure where you will spend eternity”. That question is not asked in Scripture because the concept is unBiblical and undermines the theological virtue of Hope. You cant have Hope and at the same time be 100% sure/guaranteed. 3I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God. - 1Cor 4
We can have a moral assurance of our salvation (eg relizing that you are not living in grave sin), but we cant have a 100% certain/guarantee we will stay that way (we can still sin in the future). Also see 1 Cor 9:27-10:12.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I think your misrepresenting the Catholic view…

Are you talking to me?

Please show me where I have misrepresented the Catholic view.

 

[bengal_fan]

You believe the RCC does not have the Truth and so you follow your conscience. However, are you certain that your conscience is dictated by God?

i don’t believe that the RCC “does not have Truth”. i don’t agree with everything the catholic church teaches, but (honestly) it is mostly on issues that i believe aren’t essential. the problem for me comes in the fact that the RCC teaches that those things are essential (i would be speaking of mostly Marian doctrines, which i don’t necessarily agree with, but i don’t think we can say what is essential and what is not… i see that as very different than binding and loosing. of course this isn’t the topic of this thread necessarily). i say this to clarify that i do not think the RCC is full of lies. i don’t think that’s what you meant but i just wanted to clarify.

Bonhoeffer says that if discipleship costs you nothing, you aren’t much of a disciple. This man died for this conviction (and he was a Lutheran).

i love bonhoeffer and agree with his statement. i don’t think i just live the way i want to live. i try to follow those who have gone before me, but i also have to ask the tough questions and i have to follow those men and women with the knowledge that they didn’t have it all right either (just like i know i don’t… i am fully willing to consider the points of others).

Don’t take any offense to this. I write this as much to myself as anyone else.

no offense taken. your post was polite yet firm in your stance. i appreciate it. you were not condescending in the least.

 

[bengal_fan]

But you have to realize how serious this specific issue is. Luther said the issue of Justification by Imputation was “the doctrine by which the church stands or falls”. This justification issue isnt a minor disagreement or even semantics between Catholics and the Reformers, it is a very real substantive distinction. One side is in grave error and it each side must condemn what they see as grave error.

i would disagree with luther on that. i would say the church stands or falls on Christ. the belief in His atoning (sp?) sacrifice and His eventual return. how the atonement takes place is not as important as the fact that it does take place. again, i trust in His promise that those who seek (truly seek) will find.

i agree with you last statement. if you are convinced of something as important as salvation, you have a duty to share it. but we always must approach sharing with love and humility.