Help me learn the Catholic way of salvation

[2nd_Adam]

oki just to add, the Catholic Church would say that we were ‘born again’ through Baptism ,and are in a state of “salvation” if you will, when we’re in a state of grace… when we’ve willingly walked away from God (mortal sin) we’ve cut ourselves off from grace and are not on our way to Heaven - unless we repent. God of course does draw us to repentance. So this makes it possible for anyone to fall away, but not very easy, cause God will keep on drawing them back…

we also believe that justification, not only sanctification (we don’t make such a distinction between the two) is infused, because it involves a transformation (by grace)

yes, salvation is through His merits, the difference is just in how we believe the merits are applied to us
many Protestants would say that His merits “cover” our sinfulness…Catholicism would say that through His merits we are given the grace to actually become perfect, again by Him. So that is why in Heaven we do not sin any more.

(in other words - Catholics believe Christ’s merits transform us, Protestants believe justification happens when His merits “cover” our sins. We believe the sins are washed away, not covered.)

God bless

I think many Protestants make too great of a distinction between justification and sanctification. I believe they are seperate components of salvation that are linked much closer than most Protestants think… it’s still a process but I believe those who have been justified will be sanctified to the praise and glory of His transforming grace. Without a process of self-evident transformation over time, there is no justification in the first place.

 

[traillius]

There is not a list pre-written in heaven.
" mr. kelly, I’m sorry your name is not on the guest list. I cannot let you in.
If there is an actual " lambs book of life, " then names are constantly being added and removed. The same name might be added and removed hundreds or even thousands of times during that person’s earthly life.

 

[2nd_Adam]

I don’t know what you mean, but the Church teaches that God calls everyone to Himself, and some say ‘yes’, while others say ‘no’. Why this happens is a mystery, but we believe God gave us free will to accept or reject Him. Of course, acceptance is possible with grace. Predestination means that God already sees who will be saved, since He’s outside of time, but we disagree with the Calvinists that He chose to save some people and chose others for hell… the Bible says He wants everyone to come to repentance and is not willing that any should perish

Of course the bulk of modern day Protestants do not have a Calvinist’s positon on predestination. Actually most contempoary Protestants would agree with your positon of free will. The last verse is tough, because we know that many will perish, and Jesus tells us the road is narrow. What God desires might be different than what He wills? Before the foundation of the world, do you believe God knew how many would come to Christ to be saved based on being outside of time, or is God the determining cause or factor of bringing certain sinners to Himself as the bride of Christ? The great tension is between the sovereignity of God verses the sovereignity of man in regards to reconcilation, redemption, and adoption. If God wanted to saved ever human being, why doesn’t He do that?

 

[2nd_Adam]

There is not a list pre-written in heaven.
" mr. kelly, I’m sorry your name is not on the guest list. I cannot let you in.
If there is an actual " lambs book of life, " then names are constantly being added and removed. The same name might be added and removed hundreds or even thousands of times during that person’s earthly life.

Why would God have to add and remove if He already knows the final results?

 

[Gem]

If I understand it, the Catholic Church allows a wide range of views on predestination.

Perhaps. But you might want to read this.

newadvent.org/cathen/12376b.htm

Predestinarianism is the incorrect belief that the "eternal salvation of the elect as well as the eternal damnation of the reprobate to one cause alone, namely to the sovereign will of God, and thereby excludes the free co-operation of man as a secondary factor in bringing about a happy or unhappy future in the life to come.

The essence of this heretical Predestinarianism may be expressed in these two fundamental propositions which bear to each other the relation of cause and effect:

• the absolute will of God as the sole cause of the salvation or damnation of the individual, without regard to his merits or demerits;
• as to the elect, it denies the freedom of the will under the influence of efficacious grace while it puts the reprobate under the necessity of committing sin in consequence of the absence of grace."

 

[2nd_Adam]

Perhaps. But you might want to read this.

newadvent.org/cathen/12376b.htm

Predestinarianism is the incorrect belief that the "eternal salvation of the elect as well as the eternal damnation of the reprobate to one cause alone, namely to the sovereign will of God, and thereby excludes the free co-operation of man as a secondary factor in bringing about a happy or unhappy future in the life to come.

The essence of this heretical Predestinarianism may be expressed in these two fundamental propositions which bear to each other the relation of cause and effect:

• the absolute will of God as the sole cause of the salvation or damnation of the individual, without regard to his merits or demerits;
• as to the elect, it denies the freedom of the will under the influence of efficacious grace while it puts the reprobate under the necessity of committing sin in consequence of the absence of grace."

The Council of Trent is not too nice for the theological distinctives of Calvin, Luther and those who hold to their view of predestination. It is strange that a person’s view on this great mystery appear damnable to those who hold it, even though it really isn’t a gospel issue. I’m not really sure where Augustine differed on predestination from Calvin and Luther.

 

[2nd_Adam]

The called are those to whom the gospel is preached, hopefully all of humanity.
The chosen are those who follow and believe, and are chosen based on whether they follow and believe.

I believe the gospel is a universal call and command to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. It seems you believe you are chosen based on what you do as compared to what God has done for you in Christ. I guess we all freely choose Christ, but why are we able to choose Christ and most do not. The Bible speaks of an enablement by God to come to Christ given to those who come. Doesn’t the Catholic Church teach that sinners can be saved apart from faith in Jesus Christ or without hearing and receiving the gospel? It is difficult to understand that position in regards to salvation apart from faith in Christ… such as those that are Muslim or those who are Jews but deny that Jesus is the Christ.

 

[Gem]

Of course the bulk of modern day Protestants do not have a Calvinist’s positon on predestination. Actually most contempoary Protestants would agree with your positon of free will. The last verse is tough, because we know that many will perish, and Jesus tells us the road is narrow. What God desires might be different than what He wills? Before the foundation of the world, do you believe God knew how many would come to Christ to be saved based on being outside of time, or is God the determining cause or factor of bringing certain sinners to Himself as the bride of Christ? The great tension is between the sovereignity of God verses the sovereignity of man in regards to reconcilation, redemption, and adoption. If God wanted to saved ever human being, why doesn’t He do that?

God’s will is eternal and unchanging. God’s will is that all be saved. However, we are not forced to love God. Forced love is not love. Love has to be from the will of the lover towards to loved. God loves us, each of us. We may or may not love God in return. It is our returning of love (our faith, obedience, submission in exchange for His sacrifice) to God which saves us.

Yes, God knew before the foundation of the world who would come to Him. But this process of life is for us, not God. While God does show greater revelation to some (Paul and the Apostles) than others (most of the rest of us), He does not force any one of us to respond to His call. In fact, Paul, despite his blindness, could have hardened his heart and said “no” to God.

God could have dispensed with all of creation and just created us to live with Him in heaven, but He wants us to have this experience of dependence on Him and have us share His love with our fellow human beings before that happens. Why? I think it’s because love is the greatest gift, but you can’t know love without the experience of its absence. Its absence is only possible in this world.

 

[Gem]

I believe the gospel is a universal call and command to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. It seems you believe you are chosen based on what you do as compared to what God has done for you in Christ. I guess we all freely choose Christ, but why are we able to choose Christ and most do not. The Bible speaks of an enablement by God to come to Christ given to those who come. Doesn’t the Catholic Church teach that sinners can be saved apart from faith in Jesus Christ or without hearing and receiving the gospel? It is difficult to understand that position in regards to salvation apart from faith in Christ… such as those that are Muslim or those who are Jews but deny that Jesus is the Christ.

Yes, it is universal, but are we not “rewarded according to our works”? Do we not “store up treasure in heaven”? Salvation comes from God, but what we do matters. We are no all required to do the same amount though. Even the last workers hired receive a full day’s wages.

Most do not choose God because the gate is narrow, as you say. It’s hard! Why should we deny ourselves and serve our neighbor when we can get what’s ours right now?! It’s our choice. God gives us grace, but we have to seek Him out. We don’t “earn” salvation, but we have to “want” it.

Yes, God enables us to come to Him through initial free grace. Enables, not forces.

Non-Christians can be saved without direct faith in Jesus though ignorance for which they do not share any blame (never heard the Gospel, didn’t understand it, etc). However, they are still saved through Jesus’ sacrifice (just like righteous Jews before the time of Jesus). There is no way around that. But this isn’t a “make nice, ecumenical easy out” for non-Christians; nor does it obviate the need for Jesus’ sacrifice. All it is is an admission of God’s sovereignty. He can save whom He wills. But I don’t mean by force. I mean God can save people who honestly thought they were living as God intended to the best of their ability and had no intention of rejecting God. We do what God commands, but we don’t judge the eternal fate of individual souls.

 

[4EverHis]

I think many Protestants make too great of a distinction between justification and sanctification. I believe they are seperate components of salvation that are linked much closer than most Protestants think… it’s still a process but I believe those who have been justified will be sanctified to the praise and glory of His transforming grace. Without a process of self-evident transformation over time, there is no justification in the first place.

I think that’s pretty similar to the Catholic view (more similar than other Protestant views)

Of course the bulk of modern day Protestants do not have a Calvinist’s positon on predestination. Actually most contempoary Protestants would agree with your positon of free will. The last verse is tough, because we know that many will perish, and Jesus tells us the road is narrow. What God desires might be different than what He wills? Before the foundation of the world, do you believe God knew how many would come to Christ to be saved based on being outside of time, or is God the determining cause or factor of bringing certain sinners to Himself as the bride of Christ? The great tension is between the sovereignity of God verses the sovereignity of man in regards to reconcilation, redemption, and adoption. If God wanted to saved ever human being, why doesn’t He do that?

I believe that us having free will is important because that is how we’re able to be His free children, and that’s how we’re able to love… there is no love without free will. So I think that maybe this is a risk that God was willing to take… no doubt Christ knew that even though He will die on the Cross, not everyone will go to Heaven - and probably this one of the thoughts that really contributed to His agony in the Garden. He grieves over every lost soul. But I think that also shows His great love for us, that He was willing to die and suffer so much even for a few of His creatures. I believe that God does desire everyone to be saved, but that He doesn’t force us to love Him, because this would no longer be love…

 

[2nd_Adam]

It seems that Catholics see salvation to be a cooperative effort between God and man at all stages of salvation, correct? Would it be fair to say that salvation for the Catholic would be something like 50% God’s doing and 50% man’s cooperation with God? Or the percentages can be 99% God and 1% man in the process of salvation. However, in a Catholic way of salvation, God needs our help to save us? I see salvation to be a sovereign act of God sending His Son to rescue us from the curse of the law, saving all that He intended to save. It is a rescue mission of being 100% successful. However, it God willed to save all mankind, we have to ask the question why God is not able to accomplish His will. Is man’s free will more powerful than God’s will?

 

[Nita]

Thank you. There is much that I agree with in Catholic teaching. I believe original sin is truth and clearly taught in the Scriptures. It seems the major difference between the Catholic Faith and historic Protestantism is how the grace of God flows to us as Christians… sacraments and through faith. I do believe baptism and communion are means of grace, and many Protestants have the wrong view… believing that they are only ordinances as compared to ordained means of grace. I believe grace received is merited grace that Jesus earned on our behalf by His pefect obedient sinless life and sacrificial subsitutional death on our behalf. How close are we as Christians in what I believe?

We also believe that the restoration of the life of grace to mankind was merited only by Jesus. No human could have atoned and made reparation sufficient to repair the damage done by original sin. Jesus merited it for all mankind – but it not automatic; that is, the life of grace is not infused automatically into everyone. I think all Christian denominations agree on that. The differences arise in the understanding of what cooperation is required on the part a person to initially receive and then retain the life of grace.

 

[Nita]

It seems that Catholics see salvation to be a cooperative effort between God and man at all stages of salvation, correct? Would it be fair to say that salvation for the Catholic would be something like 50% God’s doing and 50% man’s cooperation with God? Or the percentages can be 99% God and 1% man in the process of salvation. However, in a Catholic way of salvation, God needs our help to save us? I see salvation to be a sovereign act of God sending His Son to rescue us from the curse of the law, saving all that He intended to save. It is a rescue mission of being 100% successful. However, it God willed to save all mankind, we have to ask the question why God is not able to accomplish His will. Is man’s free will more powerful than God’s will?

Any good we do is always with the help of God’s grace, so it is never on our own power alone. Even faith is a gift/grace. We do say our “will” is our own; we freely choose to accept or not. God does not force our will/acceptance. God, of course, is always working,bestowing graces to help us choose correctly. (Graces to our intellect and graces in the world around us. Eg. He may send graces to enlighten our understanding, people, incidents, …)

We do say that our will is 100% our own. Do Protestants believe that? Or do they believe God takes over their will totally, or to some degree/percentage, when they choose to accept Him as their Saviour. Do non-Catholics assign a percentage to good acts?
I know some denominations believe the human will was totally corrupted with original sin and remains so. Do they then hold that it is God forcing, or taking over, their will when they desire and then make a profession of faith? I’ve never understood the concept of total corruptibility – how it can be understood in a way that holds it is still the state of the will in someone who is accepting and loving Our Lord and seeking to be obedient to His teaching - and desiring to do this.

 

[2nd_Adam]

We also believe that the restoration of the life of grace to mankind was merited only by Jesus. No human could have atoned and made reparation sufficient to repair the damage done by original sin. Jesus merited it for all mankind – but it not automatic; that is, the life of grace is not infused automatically into everyone. I think all Christian denominations agree on that. The differences arise in the understanding of what cooperation is required on the part a person to initially receive and then retain the life of grace.

There is much that we have in common and agree upon. God is reconciling the world to Himself through the person and work of Christ, making all things new. I believe that the initial conversion is a sovereign act of God, creating a new heart in whom He wills. For example, Saul did not seek God, yet Jesus sovereignty appeared to Him and others with Saul could not see Jesus. We know that Jesus chose His disciples and He told them that they did not choose Him. In Lydia’s conversion, God opened her heart so see could understand and receive the good news of God proclaimed by Paul (formerly Saul). I believe once converted (born again), there is a cooperation between man and God for the remainder of the process. However, when we stray and are disobdient, God has His ways (discipline and chastisement) to keep up from apostasy, keeping His promise to finish the work that He started for His own name sake and His own glory. My confidence is in God and His promises, and not my own ability to cooperative with God… because apart from the sustaining grace of God, every Christian would apostate.

And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. It is right for me to feel this way about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel. For God is my witness, how I yearn for you all with the affection of Christ Jesus. And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God. - Phil 1

 

[2nd_Adam]

Any good we do is always with the help of God’s grace, so it is never on our own power alone. Even faith is a gift/grace. We do say our “will” is our own; we freely choose to accept or not. God does not force our will/acceptance. God, of course, is always working,bestowing graces to help us choose correctly. (Graces to our intellect and graces in the world around us. Eg. He may send graces to enlighten our understanding, people, incidents, …)

We do say that our will is 100% our own. Do Protestants believe that? Or do they believe God takes over their will totally, or to some degree/percentage, when they choose to accept Him as their Saviour. Do non-Catholics assign a percentage to good acts?
I know some denominations believe the human will was totally corrupted with original sin and remains so. Do they then hold that it is God forcing, or taking over, their will when they desire and then make a profession of faith? I’ve never understood the concept of total corruptibility – how it can be understood in a way that holds it is still the state of the will in someone who is accepting and loving Our Lord and seeking to be obedient to His teaching - and desiring to do this.

Those are great questions which really brings out our differences in a theological sense. However, our understanding or lack of understanding and what has happened to us does not change the spiritual reality of what has happened to us. As Christians, we both agree upon original sin, maybe because we can both receive much what Augustine believed on the topic which is also taught in Romans 5. I think we both believe we are dead in our sins and trespasses, united to Adam… being part of universal fallen humanity. We both believe that conversion is needed. For the Catholic Christian, it’s through the sacrament of baptism which is the new birth described in John 3. For the Protestant, it’s through hearing and receiving the proclamation of the gospel and believing the good news (through faith). At that point of conversion, we are a new creature in Christ with His life flowing in us. At conversion, we move from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light. We move from our union with Adam and are now united to the 2nd Adam (Christ). So after that conversion and rebirth, the Spirit of God indwells in us and empowers us in our new life in Christ. Romans chapter 6 as well as sayings of Jesus teaches that the old man (before conversion) is slaves to sin, or in bondage to our sin nature… separated from a life in God. After conversion, we have a new nature with the inclination to the life in God, also being described to be bond-servants of Christ, or slaves of righteousness. How much of this is shared theology?

 

[Nita]

There is much that we have in common and agree upon. God is reconciling the world to Himself through the person and work of Christ, making all things new. I believe that the initial conversion is a sovereign act of God, creating a new heart in whom He wills. For example, Saul did not seek God, yet Jesus sovereignty appeared to Him and others with Saul could not see Jesus. We know that Jesus chose His disciples and He told them that they did not choose Him. In Lydia’s conversion, God opened her heart so see could understand and receive the good news of God proclaimed by Paul (formerly Saul). I believe once converted (born again), there is a cooperation between man and God for the remainder of the process. However, when we stray and are disobdient, God has His ways (discipline and chastisement) to keep up from apostasy, keeping His promise to finish the work that He started for His own name sake and His own glory. My confidence is in God and His promises, and not my own ability to cooperative with God… because apart from the sustaining grace of God, every Christian would apostate.

We would also see Jesus’ appearance to Saul/Paul as a grace. But we would refer to it as an “actual” grace (as opposed to the infusion of “habitual”/sanctifying grace which we see as our justification). We believe Paul still had to consent - to freely choose - in his mind and heart to believe and accept Jesus. Until he does that, he is not converted. Even after seeing and hearing Our Lord, Paul could have chosen to reject Jesus. Unfortunately being given the gift of witnessing the miraculous does not guarantee conversion - not in the gospel accounts, and not in the present day.

The same would apply to Lydia. We would see the aid in understanding as an actual grace. Catholics consider the intellect and the will as two separate powers of the human soul. We believe God can infuse knowledge and understanding into our intellect without our consent. But we do not believe that He will take control of our will, forcing us to choose to accept and follow that knowledge/understanding.

And I agree, God in His sovereignty, chooses whom He will bestow a particular grace on.

 

[2nd_Adam]

We would also see Jesus’ appearance to Saul/Paul as a grace. But we would refer to it as an “actual” grace (as opposed to the infusion of “habitual”/sanctifying grace which we see as our justification). We believe Paul still had to consent - to freely choose - in his mind and heart to believe and accept Jesus. Until he does that, he is not converted. Even after seeing and hearing Our Lord, Paul could have chosen to reject Jesus. Unfortunately being given the gift of witnessing the miraculous does not guarantee conversion - not in the gospel accounts, and not in the present day.

And I agree, God in His sovereignty, chooses who He will bestow a particular grace on.

Okay, with the statement that I changed to red font, I see we are starting to see things in a very united way as fellow Christians. I will be completely honest with you, modern Protestantism has a great tendency to remove the divine purpose and role of the Church, incorrectly changing the Christian experience as an individual experience… missing the truth that Christianity as being the body of Christ (Eph 4). Of course our understanding of the “Church” is very different. The concept of “asking Jesus into our hearts”, and having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ" has led many to have a gnostic theology based on indivdualism. Personal gnostic theology causes many to not worship God in Spirit and in truth determined by divine written revelation.

I do believe Saul had to freely choose Christ. However, once Saul was able to spirituality see and hear Jesus Christ, it would be natural for Paul to come to Him. The sinners who do not come to Christ are not able to see Jesus as being desirable, because they cannot spiritual see Him as who He is. In Matthew 16, why was Peter able to confess Jesus as the Christ?

 

[Nita]

Okay, with the statement that I changed to red font, I see we are starting to see things in a very united way as fellow Christians. I will be completely honest with you, modern Protestantism has a great tendency to remove the divine purpose and role of the Church, incorrectly changing the Christian experience as an individual experience… missing the truth that Christianity as being the body of Christ. Of course our understanding of the “Church” is very different. The concept of “asking Jesus into our hearts”, and having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ" has led many to have a gnostic theology based on indivdualism. Personal gnostic theology causes many to not worship God in Spirit and in truth determined by divine written revelation.

I do believe Saul had to freely choose Christ. However, once Saul was able to spirituality see and hear Jesus Christ, it would be natural for Paul to come to Him. The sinners who do not come to Christ are not able to see Jesus as being desirable, because they cannot spiritual see Him as who He is. In Matthew 16, why was Peter able to confess Jesus as the Christ?

I keep editing. Bad habit of mine.
I see my last edit came after your post, so I’ll just paste it here in case you didn’t notice it had been added.
The same would apply to Lydia. We would see the aid in understanding as an actual grace. **Catholics consider the intellect and the will as two separate powers of the human soul. **We believe God can infuse knowledge and understanding into our intellect without our consent. But we do not believe that He will take control of our will, forcing us to choose to accept and follow that knowledge/understanding.

In regards to Peter, I would say it would probably be infused knowledge. Either that or some sort of temporary charismatic gift of prophecy.

It always seems like if someone has the knowledge, and recognizes it as true, there would be no problem with them converting. But it doesn’t always work that way. To truly convert almost always involves changing in some way (thought or behavior) - and some people, for various reasons, just do not want to change.

 

[2nd_Adam]

I keep editing. Bad habit of mine.
I see my last edit came after your post, so I’ll just paste it here in case you didn’t notice it had been added.
The same would apply to Lydia. We would see the aid in understanding as an actual grace. **Catholics consider the intellect and the will as two separate powers of the human soul. **We believe God can infuse knowledge and understanding into our intellect without our consent. But we do not believe that He will take control of our will, forcing us to choose to accept and follow that knowledge/understanding.

In regards to Peter, I would say it would probably be infused knowledge. Either that or some sort of temporary charismatic gift of prophecy.

It always seems like if someone has the knowledge, and recognizes it as true, there would be no problem with them converting. But it doesn’t always work that way. To truly convert almost always involves changing in some way (thought or behavior) - and some people, for various reasons, just do not want to change.

Here’s your statement again: “And I agree, God in His sovereignty, chooses whom He will bestow a particular grace on”.

The kind and amount of grace is applied sovereignly, according to the good pleasure of God independent of anything in the creature, correct?

Spiritual Blessings in Christ

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us [2] for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known [3] to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

11 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, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. 13 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, 14 who is the guarantee [4] of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, [5] to the praise of his glory.
Eph 1

2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body [1] and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But [2] God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. - Eph 2

 

[Nita]

Those are great questions which really brings out our differences in a theological sense. However, our understanding or lack of understanding and what has happened to us does not change the spiritual reality of what has happened to us. As Christians, we both agree upon original sin, maybe because we can both receive much what Augustine believed on the topic which is also taught in Romans 5. I think we both believe we are dead in our sins and trespasses, united to Adam… being part of universal fallen humanity. We both believe that conversion is needed.

I would say it is shared theology to this point.

For the Catholic Christian, it’s through the sacrament of baptism which is the new birth described in John 3. For the Protestant, it’s through hearing and receiving the proclamation of the gospel and believing the good news (through faith).

I would agree with the differences you note here. But I would mention that for adult baptism, we believe hearing and believing is also necessary, but the actual infusion of the new life of God occurs at Baptism.

At that point of conversion, we are a new creature in Christ with His life flowing in us. At conversion, we move from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light. We move from our union with Adam and are now united to the 2nd Adam (Christ). So after that conversion and rebirth, the Spirit of God indwells in us and empowers us in our new life in Christ. Romans chapter 6 as well as sayings of Jesus teaches that the old man (before conversion) is slaves to sin, or in bondage to our sin nature… separated from a life in God. After conversion, we have a new nature with the inclination to the life in God, also being described to be bond-servants of Christ, or slaves of righteousness. How much of this is shared theology?

I would say this is pretty much shared theology – altho might need to do some clarification on what is encompassed by “new nature”. We do not believe that concupiscence disappears.