How are we saved?

[runandsew]

Jesus didn’t teach everything in a doctrinal sense; He left the apostles to teach the fuller revelation and doctrine concerning salvation (Jn 16:13)

Ah, I get it.

Like when the Apostle Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

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

And like when the Apostle Paul wrote: " What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."

And when Paul again writes in regards to baptism: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

And again writes:“For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body – Jews or Greeks, slaves or free – and all were made to drink of one Spirit.”

And again writes: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.”

And writes again: “and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.”

And lastly writes: “he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,”

Ummmm… It seems like they are saying you must be baptized to be saved.
Thanks for the insight on scripture, but I don’t think it helped your argument very much.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Of course you do; that’s what the CC teaches, and again, that’s a core belief of a works-based soteriology. But salvation is an act of God, in which He justifies the believer—forever—on the basis of faith. There’s a “process” within salvation—sanctification—but that process is not salvation, but a continual movement away from sin to holiness.

I think you are confusing the semantics of “work” and this is causing you to misjudge and mischaracterize what Catholics actually believe here. You need to reform your semantic for work and see it as a synonym for “growth in the spirit” through grace. If ever there was unassailable evidence that salvation is simultaneously a past, present and future event it is the clear evidence in the differences between a new convert and a mature saint. The zeal and emotionalism of a new convert is never superior to the spiritual insight and sanctity of a mature Christian who has grown in the Spirit and carried her cross all her life. You need to discover the truth that grace and work are always paired. God’s grace ALWAYS returns to him with dividends. Here is the proof:

*Isa 55:11 So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it. * Grace always implies action and work.

In baptism God’s Divine Word takes root in a human heart and through a lifetime of being flood by nourishing grace that original seed sprouts and grows. We all seek to be more Christ-like and that takes time to take on a new nature.

If you do not see spiritual growth as “bad” then why see “work” as bad? Clearly the nature of new things is to grow - not to remain small or stunted. See work for what it is - essential and intrinsic to life.

In a certain sense then life itself is a work - a cooperative labor of that initial seed received in baptism. Spiritual growth never occurs instantaneously. No, we learn to walk by the spirit - first with baby steps and with infants’ food - then later as we learn to walk with God we get more solid food. Thus spiritual growth is a work which is a necessary and natural cause-and-effect reaction to the grace that operates on the first seed of God that is planted within the humus (human) of the heart. Thus, in essence the concept of “work” can be factored into the semantic of “grace” in a near equivalence (except that grace is never wasted - someone is always touched - if not by positive result by negative lesson of obstinacy and non-cooperation) .

Thus too is seen the material means by which the relationship between the divine and the human are expressed first through grace in the first instance and then assented to through work in the second instance. This give and take pattern is just like a heart beat. It is a pulse and the very essence of life. Nature demonstrates this pattern everywhere - look only to the same pulse of life seen in the tidal ebbs and flow. It’s intimate - and this is the essence of life - a symphony of divine love and human response.

Thus life can exist without physicalness in the very relational pattern give-and-take pattern (imagine a heart beat here - either in a man’s chest or in the celestial vibration of Creation itself). This is “the universal relationship” that is the heartbeat of life - a manifestation of Divine Love who’s pattern defines and is life - a work of Creation. Thus all must love and serve through the labor of life or cease to serve the Divine and be cut off and perish.

Can you see now how love itself is a work that requires labor and sacrifice and that life itself is impossible without works?

Love can not be expressed in a vacuum. It is the essence of life and without a response life can not be exist; no it needs a cause-and-effect - a purpose - a labor.

Those who are dead have no works; where there are no works there is no life. That is the place of one sided love and that is the hell of self.

James

 

[sandusky]

Ah, I get it.

Like when the Apostle Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

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

And like when the Apostle Paul wrote: " What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."

And when Paul again writes in regards to baptism: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

And again writes:“For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body – Jews or Greeks, slaves or free – and all were made to drink of one Spirit.”

And again writes: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.”

And writes again: “and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.”

And lastly writes: “he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,”

Ummmm… It seems like they are saying you must be baptized to be saved.
Thanks for the insight on scripture, but I don’t think it helped your argument very much.

Arrrggghhhh! You don’t get it.

But, that’s OK.

 

[sandusky]

I think you are confusing the semantics of “work” and this is causing you to misjudge and mischaracterize what Catholics actually believe here. You need to reform your semantic for work and see it as a synonym for “growth in the spirit” through grace.

I call it as I see it, James, I’m a former RC.

CentralFLJames:

If ever there was unassailable evidence that salvation is simultaneously a past, present and future event it is the clear evidence in the differences between a new convert and a mature saint. The zeal and emotionalism of a new convert is never superior to the spiritual insight and sanctity of a mature Christian who has grown in the Spirit and carried her cross all her life. You need to discover the truth that grace and work are always paired. God’s grace ALWAYS returns to him with dividends. Here is the proof:

Isa 55:11 So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it. Grace always implies action and work.

In baptism God’s Divine Word takes root in a human heart and through a lifetime of being flood by nourishing grace that original seed sprouts and grows. We all seek to be more Christ-like and that takes time to take on a new nature.

If you do not see spiritual growth as “bad” then why see “work” as bad? Clearly the nature of new things is to grow - not to remain small or stunted. See work for what it is - essential and intrinsic to life.

In a certain sense then life itself is a work - a cooperative labor of that initial seed received in baptism. Spiritual growth never occurs instantaneously. No, we learn to walk by the spirit - first with baby steps and with infants’ food - then later as we learn to walk with God we get more solid food. Thus spiritual growth is a work which is a necessary and natural cause-and-effect reaction to the grace that operates on the first seed of God that is planted within the humus (human) of the heart. Thus, in essence the concept of “work” can be factored into the semantic of “grace” in a near equivalence (except that grace is never wasted - someone is always touched - if not by positive result by negative lesson of obstinacy and non-cooperation) .

Thus too is seen the material means by which the relationship between the divine and the human are expressed first through grace in the first instance and then assented to through work in the second instance. This give and take pattern is just like a heart beat. It is a pulse and the very essence of life. Nature demonstrates this pattern everywhere - look only to the same pulse of life seen in the tidal ebbs and flow. It’s intimate - and this is the essence of life - a symphony of divine love and human response.

Thus life can exist without physicalness in the very relational pattern give-and-take pattern (imagine a heart beat here - either in a man’s chest or in the celestial vibration of Creation itself). This is “the universal relationship” that is the heartbeat of life - a manifestation of Divine Love who’s pattern defines and is life - a work of Creation. Thus all must love and serve through the labor of life or cease to serve the Divine and be cut off and perish.

Can you see now how love itself is a work that requires labor and sacrifice and that life itself is impossible without works?

Love can not be expressed in a vacuum. It is the essence of life and without a response life can not be exist; no it needs a cause-and-effect - a purpose - a labor.

Those who are dead have no works; where there are no works there is no life. That is the place of one sided love and that is the hell of self.

James

You’re confused, James. As a protestant, I’m at work, daily, producing fruit. However, it’s not the works that save me; OTOH, you believe that they do save you; I know, I know, I know, I don’t don’t understand, but the Good News is that it’s grace that saves, and it does so because of the finished work of Christ, and it’s a forever grace given once, never to be lost, taken away, or rescinded. Oh Happy Day!! :extrahappy:

 

[runandsew]

I call it as I see it, James, I’m a former RC.

You’re confused, James. As a protestant, I’m at work, daily, producing fruit. However, it’s not the works that save me; OTOH, you believe that they do save you; I know, I know, I know, I don’t don’t understand, but the Good News is that it’s grace that saves, and it does so because of the finished work of Christ, and it’s a forever grace given once, never to be lost, taken away, or rescinded. Oh Happy Day!! :extrahappy:

No, Catholics do not believe that works save us.

Let me say this again.

We are saved by God’s grace alone.
Our response to that grace is a faith working in love.

It is faith and works.

You keep trying to separate them.

This is a both/and issue, not an either/or issue.

How about this, let’s make a new word.

Faithworks.

See, they are now combined and can not be separated.

Now let’s try this again:

We are saved by God’s grace alone and our response to that grace is faithworks.

Is that better?

 

[Philthy]

…I pointed out that the Catholic Church teaches OSAS by a different name.

Yeah - dying in a state of grace. Thats the only OSAS in Catholic theology.

 

[Philthy]

My experience here has shown me that Catholics have difficulty with warnings and admonitions in Scripture, and that they are able to infer only thing—you can lose your salvation.

My experience has been that OSAS adherents lump all warning and admonitions into the “discipline” or “loss of rewards” categories.
Pretending that the “discipline” occurs during our earthly lives is a difficult sell. Those who persist in sin often have easy lives by earthly standards. The faithful have difficult lives - check out the Beatitudes.
Then comes the magic black bag of “eternal rewards”. Press any OSAS adherent to admit that there are different levels of satisfaction in the heavenly realm and you will see just what a farse this notion is. They’ll claim that one is saved yet their heavenly rewards are compromised, but they wont agree that this compromise has any significant, eternal consequence despite all the attention the authors of Scripture attribute to it.

 

[sandusky]

No, Catholics do not believe that works save us.

Let me say this again.

We are saved by God’s grace alone.
Our response to that grace is a faith working in love.

It is faith and works.

You keep trying to separate them.

This is a both/and issue, not an either/or issue.

How about this, let’s make a new word.

Faithworks.

See, they are now combined and can not be separated.

Now let’s try this again:

We are saved by God’s grace alone and our response to that grace is faithworks.

Is that better?

2010Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.There’s a whole lotta meritin’ goin’ on. Merit is based on works, and if it’s by works, it’s not longer grace.

 

[sandusky]

Philthy:

My experience has been that OSAS adherents lump all warning and admonitions into the “discipline” or “loss of rewards” categories.

Pretending that the “discipline” occurs during our earthly lives is a difficult sell.

Gee, Phil, I’ve been advocating discipline in this life all along. Did you miss that?

Philthy:

Those who persist in sin often have easy lives by earthly standards. The faithful have difficult lives - check out the Beatitudes.

The faithful have joyful lives as well, Phil. Those who have the fullness of truth know that God works all things for good in their lives.

Philthy:

Then comes the magic black bag of “eternal rewards”. Press any OSAS adherent to admit that there are different levels of satisfaction in the heavenly realm and you will see just what a farse this notion is. They’ll claim that one is saved yet their heavenly rewards are compromised, but they wont agree that this compromise has any significant, eternal consequence despite all the attention the authors of Scripture attribute to it.

ISTM, that you’ve still got that bitterness in your heart. I’ll keep you in prayer.

Oh Happy Day!!

 

[Angels_Unaware]

Gee, Phil, I’ve been advocating discipline in this life all along. Did you miss that?

You obviously completely missed the point, unless you are telling us now that you are God.

People’s lives often do not reflect whether or not they are living in sin. Many suffer, and are not experiencing chastisement, but sharing in the suffering of the Lord. Others do not suffer, but are not experiencing God’s blessings, but rather temporal consequences of their own sin.

 

[sandusky]

You obviously completely missed the point, unless you are telling us now that you are God.

People’s lives often do not reflect whether or not they are living in sin. Many suffer, and are not experiencing chastisement, but sharing in the suffering of the Lord. Others do not suffer, but are not experiencing God’s blessings, but rather temporal consequences of their own sin.

Well the, thanks for correcting my misunderstanding. :tiphat:

 

[Angels_Unaware]

Well the, thanks for correcting my misunderstanding. :tiphat:

My pleasure.

 

[CentralFLJames]

2010Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.There’s a whole lotta meritin’ goin’ on. Merit is based on works, and if it’s by works, it’s not longer grace.

OK its time for water-boarding.

Just accept that logic and reason are not your strong suits. You make way too many assumptions and short circuit the logic to arrive at wrong conclusion. This is symptomatic of expectational bias in the outcome (e.g. denominational bias) or simple elementary logic errors. I think the issue here is that you don’t recognize or differentiate between Boolean “OR” and Boolean “exclusive OR” (aka XOR) ways of thinking and are bucking the western conventions. Let me give an example:

Consider the following logical expression:

I_Finally_Get_It = A OR B

Under Plain Ol’ Standard Vanilla “OR”
I_Finally_Get_It = A OR B

Resolves in this manner

"I_Finally_Get_It resolves to TRUE in 3 out of 4 possible combinations of conditions. That is, the expression is TRUE if A is true or B is true; or both A and B are true. The expression is false only when both A and B are BOTH false.

“Under the Rare/Non-Conventional Exclusive OR (XOR)”
I_Finally_Get_It = A XOR B

Resolves in this manner

"I_Finally_Get_It resolves to TRUE in only half of the possible 4 cases (e.g. 2 out of 4). In other words to be True A and B must always be the opposite of the other (only one True). This is so called “either or” thinking - typically seen in Protestant fundamentalism. So the expression is TRUE when A is True while B is false or in the case where B is True while A is false. The expression is FALSE when both A and B are equal; either both are TRUE or when both A and B are FALSE.

The XOR form of reasoning is generally anti-Catholic in thinking since it its is by definition “not universal” and a way of thinking that is defined in terms of opposites or as in opposition to or in conflict with 2 sides A and B (e.g. its always in “In Protest Of”). Note that statistically this form of of thinking will be in disagreement with the conventional “OR” way of thinking in 25% more of the cases. I think it could thus even be said this counter form of thinking is “negative” thinking or what most people would say is “just plain wrong headed”.

So, what you seem to be doing here is using a non-conventional default form of logic (giving the benefit of the doubt that you are not just making simple logic errors). The convention of most “westerners” is that we use the conventional “OR” when we speak to each other. You appear to use the unconventional and unnatural way of thinking which uses the exclusive OR (XOR) form of thinking. Do you come from a western familial background?

In other words, you probably speak right past 75%-90% of most people in the USA since they think you see things that ain’t there and are simply, ahem, crazy. Sorry - that may not be fair but that’s the way it is when one tries to impose their way of thinking counter culture to the historical social norms.

So given the above expression:
We all say “I_Finally_Get_It” when A is True or when B is True or when both A or B are both True together. (In 75% of the cases we are more agreeable and Finally_Get_It )

But you only say “I_Finally_Get_It” when A is True and B is False or when A is False and B is True. (In only 50% of the cases you are agreeable - go flip a coin ).

If my theory is right I bet you got in lots of fights as a kid. Yes?

My recommendation - just go with the flow here. Since you can’t control the predestiny you believe in it merits you nothing to worry about it or speak about. The truth is you are admitting here that you don’t have a clue if you are truly saved until God judges you saved then this entire topic is irrelevant and of no pragmatic application. Since in your system of thinking anything you labor to do to understand just becomes more Catholic - that you claim is a work that merits you nothing. Do Catholics who exceed the requirements by having faith AND working while believing invalidate OSAS and their salvation? You do know that it only makes you appear hypocritical to belabor these salvation arguments and work hard to try to get others to come to your way of thinking if you truly believe that we can not merit ourselves anything good once we believe. That is, unless you are hedging your bets and trying your hand at impossible works anyway? Are you?

James

 

[runandsew]

2010Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.There’s a whole lotta meritin’ goin’ on. Merit is based on works, and if it’s by works, it’s not longer grace.

No, No No.
You simply do not understand the Catholic teaching on Merit and Reward.
Here is a link to an article which explains it in a simpler manner than you might even understand.
MERIT AND REWARD

Protestants often have much confusion about the Catholic understanding of merit, thinking that Catholics teach that one must do good works to come to God and be saved. This is exactly the opposite of what the Church teaches. The Council of Trent stressed: “[N]one of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification; for if it is by grace, it is not now by works; otherwise, as the Apostle [Paul] says, grace is no more grace” (Decree on Justification 8, citing Rom. 11:6).

You have to read the bible in context to what the writers were intending for their target audience which they were writing to.
If you read the bible with your “saved by faith alone” filtered len on, you will fall short of the mark that writers like St. Paul were aiming for.

I say go back and read the book of Acts as a prequel to the epistles of St. Paul, and then you will see what St. Paul was up against, and you will have a better understanding of the message St. Paul was trying to pass on to his readers.

In short, the Judiazers were confronting the Christians who were already baptized, and telling them that they also had to be circumcised to be saved. Paul is telling his readers that no, they don’t have to follow the Mosaic law to be saved, they are already saved by faith.
But he is not telling them they are saved by faith alone, he is telling them they are saved by faith apart from the law.

But because you read “faith alone” in this, you go beyond what St. Paul is telling his readers.

I give up on this thread, I think I finally understand what invincible ignorance means.

2 Peter 3:15-16
Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

 

[sandusky]

OK its time for water-boarding.

Just accept that logic and reason are not your strong suits. You make way too many assumptions and short circuit the logic to arrive at wrong conclusion. This is symptomatic of expectational bias in the outcome (e.g. denominational bias) or simple elementary logic errors. I think the issue here is that you don’t recognize or differentiate between Boolean “OR” and Boolean “exclusive OR” (aka XOR) ways of thinking and are bucking the western conventions. Let me give an example:

Consider the following logical expression:

I_Finally_Get_It = A OR B

Under Plain Ol’ Standard Vanilla “OR”
I_Finally_Get_It = A OR B

Resolves in this manner

"I_Finally_Get_It resolves to TRUE in 3 out of 4 possible combinations of conditions. That is, the expression is TRUE if A is true or B is true; or both A and B are true. The expression is false only when both A and B are BOTH false.

“Under the Rare/Non-Conventional Exclusive OR (XOR)”
I_Finally_Get_It = A XOR B

Resolves in this manner

"I_Finally_Get_It resolves to TRUE in only half of the possible 4 cases (e.g. 2 out of 4). In other words to be True A and B must always be the opposite of the other (only one True). This is so called “either or” thinking - typically seen in Protestant fundamentalism. So the expression is TRUE when A is True while B is false or in the case where B is True while A is false. The expression is FALSE when both A and B are equal; either both are TRUE or when both A and B are FALSE.

The XOR form of reasoning is generally anti-Catholic in thinking since it its is by definition “not universal” and a way of thinking that is defined in terms of opposites or as in opposition to or in conflict with 2 sides A and B (e.g. its always in “In Protest Of”). Note that statistically this form of of thinking will be in disagreement with the conventional “OR” way of thinking in 25% more of the cases. I think it could thus even be said this counter form of thinking is “negative” thinking or what most people would say is “just plain wrong headed”.

So, what you seem to be doing here is using a non-conventional default form of logic (giving the benefit of the doubt that you are not just making simple logic errors). The convention of most “westerners” is that we use the conventional “OR” when we speak to each other. You appear to use the unconventional and unnatural way of thinking which uses the exclusive OR (XOR) form of thinking. Do you come from a western familial background?

In other words, you probably speak right past 75%-90% of most people in the USA since they think you see things that ain’t there and are simply, ahem, crazy. Sorry - that may not be fair but that’s the way it is when one tries to impose their way of thinking counter culture to the historical social norms.

So given the above expression:
We all say “I_Finally_Get_It” when A is True or when B is True or when both A or B are both True together. (In 75% of the cases we are more agreeable and Finally_Get_It )

But you only say “I_Finally_Get_It” when A is True and B is False or when A is False and B is True. (In only 50% of the cases you are agreeable - go flip a coin ).

If my theory is right I bet you got in lots of fights as a kid. Yes?

My recommendation - just go with the flow here. Since you can’t control the predestiny you believe in it merits you nothing to worry about it or speak about. The truth is you are admitting here that you don’t have a clue if you are truly saved until God judges you saved then this entire topic is irrelevant and of no pragmatic application. Since in your system of thinking anything you labor to do to understand just becomes more Catholic - that you claim is a work that merits you nothing. Do Catholics who exceed the requirements by having faith AND working while believing invalidate OSAS and their salvation? You do know that it only makes you appear hypocritical to belabor these salvation arguments and work hard to try to get others to come to your way of thinking if you truly believe that we can not merit ourselves anything good once we believe. That is, unless you are hedging your bets and trying your hand at impossible works anyway? Are you?

James

You’re very strange, James.

If I find I’ll be coming to Florida, I’ll look you up, and you can take me out to lunch, and we’ll talk face-to-face.

 

[sandusky]

runandsew:

You have to read the bible in context to what the writers were intending for their target audience which they were writing to.

I do that.

runandsew:

If you read the bible with your “saved by faith alone” filtered len on, you will fall short of the mark that writers like St. Paul were aiming for.

I know, I know, I know, and if you read the bible with you’re "my-interpretation-must-line-up-with-the-teaching-of-the-2000-year-old-infallible-teaching-magisterium’s-self-proclaimed-authority-and-self-defined-contents-of-the-deposit-of-faith-because-I-can’t-interpret-the-bible-for-myself" lenses on, you wind up in the position you’re in, and that’s error, IMO.

runandsew:

I say go back and read the book of Acts as a prequel to the epistles of St. Paul, and then you will see what St. Paul was up against, and you will have a better understanding of the message St. Paul was trying to pass on to his readers.

In short, the Judiazers were confronting the Christians who were already baptized, and telling them that they also had to be circumcised to be saved. Paul is telling his readers that no, they don’t have to follow the Mosaic law to be saved, they are already saved by faith.
But he is not telling them they are saved by faith alone, he is telling them they are saved by faith apart from the law.

Thank you, I know the context.

runandsew:

But because you read “faith alone” in this, you go beyond what St. Paul is telling his readers.

I give up on this thread, I think I finally understand what invincible ignorance means.

2 Peter 3:15-16
Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Thanks for the insults. As guanophore would say, “that’s very Catholic of you!”

Here’s an Oh Happy Day for you.

(I’m sure you’re very sweet, but I’m not with you on your theology.)

 

[JRKH]

Jesus never taught the Solas. They came about and were articulated at the time of the reformation as a result of the abuses and errors of the CC.

If you say that you follow Jesus, and Jesus never taught any of the “Sola’s” then how can you possible accept that the “Sola’s” are correct.
You say that they came about as a result of "errors and abuses of the Church, but then you are substituting other teachings that, again by your own admission, have no foundation in the teachings of Christ whom you claim to follow.
You say that these "Sola’s came about due to errors in the Church.
How do you know that?
What makes you so sure that the Sola’s are correct and the Church at the time was wrong ?
How can you accept a teaching as Christian, that is clearly not taught by Christ?

Finally - I find it most interesting that the term Sola, which means alone. should have developed into 5 “Sola’s”. Seems to me to undecut the entire premise.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Actually All of these arguments about faith and grace and works and how one is necessary and another not are really missing the point of looking at our place in the Salvic Journey.

If I am speaking to a person who is not a Christian I am naturally going to talk about the need for Faith, Belief and Baptism, the Sacrifice of Christ, the Graces that Flow from God and so forth. These are natural first steps to bringing someone the Good News and bringing them home to Christ.

If I am speaking to someone who already professes to BE a Christian, then I would be looking at their life and actions (works) to see if they are of a Christian nature. If they are not, it would be necessary for me to point this out to him just as I would want someone to point out to me when I am acting in an unchristian manner. (See Matthew 16: 15-18)

If such a Christian brother points me to some Faith alone or OSAS or other such belief, I would be obliged to show him James, “Faith without Works” statement. In addition I would ask, just as I ask here, what did Jesus teach? He taught a Faith of Action; Of Doing. Remember the “Least of my Bretheren” passage. These are all points of actions - Works, if you will.

Without such actions, our faith is dead - or never really existed in the first place.
The Faith and works issue is more a question of where we look on the timeline of our faith journey. And this is critical because we must not stop on that faith journey or we risk being swept away from our Lord. We must constantly “Work our our Salvation with Fear and Trembling”.

Finally I would suggest to others here that instead of trying to interpret the Gospels in light of the Epistles, you interpret the Epistles in light of the Gospels. Any Christian Theology must, by nature, flow from the Teachings of Christ - the Gospels. The Epistles must suppor the Gospels and not the other way around.

Peace
James

 

[sandusky]

(Edited)

JRKH:

You say that they came about as a result of "errors and abuses of the Church, but then you are substituting other teachings that, again by your own admission, have no foundation in the teachings of Christ whom you claim to follow.

I never said they have "no foundation.”

JRKH:

You say that these "Sola’s came about due to errors in the Church.

How do you know that?

What makes you so sure that the Sola’s are correct and the Church at the time was wrong?

Certainly you’ve heard of the reformation.

JRKH:

How can you accept a teaching as Christian, that is clearly not taught by Christ?

See response #1.

JRKH:

Finally - I find it most interesting that the term Sola, which means alone. should have developed into 5 “Sola’s”. Seems to me to undecut the entire premise.

Clearly to place the emphasis on the authority of the scripture, above which there is no higher authority, and the rest with their individual emphases.

 

[By_His_Mercy]

Hi Sandusky,

It deals with both. One’s sins, past, present and future, are forgiven at the first point of repentance and belief. Because at that point, he’s also declared righteous by God (Rom 4:1ff).

But it’s not clear in the text. If one’s past sins are forgiven, one also stands righteous in the eyes of God. That’s why people come to Jesus…they know they’ve sinned and want to be forgiven of all of the sins they’ve committed. Yes, they’re reconciled…and we know we’re reconciled if we hold fast (Col 1:22-23)…I think “hold fast”, “walk in the light”, “abide in Him”, etc. have a whole lot of overlap. It’s usually just expected that believers will hold fast and abide in Jesus and His teachings…but we’re given dire warnings just in case (Gal 6:7-9, Rom 8:12-13, James 5:19-20, Jude 23, etc.).

Who’s got two kinds of sin?

OK, I should have said two kinds of forgiveness…not two kinds of sin. You had previously said

When a saved person deals with known sin in his life through repentance, he receives God’s parental forgiveness, which cancels divine corrective chastisement…

But 1 Jn 1:9 and James 5:14-15 speak of sin being forgiven. Not some other kind of “parental forgiveness” that seems to be an ongoing thing for believers vs. a once-for-all judicial forgiveness to justify a new believer. But I don’t see this in the text. I believe sin is sin, and it separates from God, and it has to be dealt with seriously. This “parental forgiveness”…seems is applied to someone who is forgiven their future sins!? So in 1 Jn 1:9, James 5:14-15 wouldn’t mean sins are forgiven then…but it does say that.

The elimination of punishment, and forgiveness of sins, and the beginning of fellowship is based on Christ’s atonement.

Yes…all based on Christ’s atonement. I agree. Now…we’re reconciled if we hold fast (Col 1:22-23), we’re saved if we hold fast (1 Cor 15:1-4), we’re in Christ’s household if we hold fast (Heb 3:6), we’re partakers of Christ if we hold fast (Heb 3:14), etc. So if we don’t hold fast…that’s sin…and it future sin that isn’t forgiven right now. We loose reconciliation, being partakers of Christ, etc. Of course this is from our temporal perspective…the elect will be saved and the non-elect won’t be saved. And you can say if we hold fast we’ll be saved. Both are true at the same time, right?

Nothing can exclude the justified from the kingdom—nothing.

But in our temporal sphere…I don’t think we’re justified once-for-all. When we confess we receive forgiveness of sins and cleansing of all unrighteousness (so we’re again righteous in the eyes of God).

I’ll never be able to prove that to you…

But show me in the text. I’ve shown you that sins are forgiven in the future. I’ve shown you that the Lord needs to discipline us so that we won’t be condemned along with the world (1 Cor 11:32). You’ve shown me general things without answers to the specifics.

I understand your understanding of the warnings—they mean that the justified can lose their salvation—that’s the only possible explanation of which you can conceive, because that’s the only thing that makes sense to you.

It’s what the text says…one reaps eternal life or corruption depending on if they walk by the Spirit or by the flesh (Gal 6:7-9). We’re under obligation to walk by the Spirit lest we die (Rom 8:12-13). I take these seriously. “lest we die” seems to indicate eternal death…and we know from Gal 6:7-9 it’s “reap eternal life” vs. “reap corruption”. I think both warnings (in the two big epistles dealing with justification) are given to show God’s future work in us is necessary to avoid condemnation. And we know this for sure in 1 Cor 11:32 “the Lord disciplines us so that we won’t be condemned along with the world”.

True repentance leads to complete forgiveness of sin; as I said, however, the faithful will continue to sin, and therefore, as “adopted children” they will be in need of parental forgiveness.

That’s another kind of forgiveness…this wouldn’t procure justification in a view with once-for-all justification. But you haven’t shown me the specifics in the text to validate this. I see confession/forgiveness, discipline so we won’t be condemned, etc. All specifics in the text.

All sin is real sin, and all sin, for the justified, is completely forgiven at the time of their justification.

But I haven’t seen this in the text. I see warnings about future sin…excluding one from the kingdom (Gal 5:19-21).

Why would you want me to tell you that?

I think that’s your pattern…if we see forgiveness of sin after we confess, you say it’s some other “parental forgiveness” which doesn’t justify. So I just assume if you see “cleansed from all unrighteousness”…that can’t be literally true if we’re justified once-for-all.

The elect won’t be lost—God won’t allow it.

Of course. I agree with Thomas Aquinas.

I’m not following you here.

Just to show God’s work in us is necessary for us to avoid being condemned along with the world. He gives us a new nature…so we’ll really be doing these things…“I was hungry and you fed Me”. I don’t think these works are imputed. I sense you follow Calvin’s “dual mode” of justification: 1) forgiveness of sin, and 2) the imputation to the believer of Jesus’ perfect life of obedience. I think the works that identify and separate at the sheep and goats are done by God in our own bodies…they’re not imputed. The works are given as gifts…like the CCC teaches (2007-2011).

God bless you,