How are we saved?

[Chaldean_Rite]

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.

Try my Bishop on this subject matter. H.G. just gave an excellent lecture on this last week. We are the Church of the East; St. Thomas the Apostle was the one, along w/ St. Mari and St. Addai, his two disciples, who brought us the Gospel in its native tongue. Give it a try.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4365372#post4365372

let us know what you think. The offer goes to everyone else as well.

 

[Philthy]

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

I did, but the discipline you have spoken of in the past is not one that has any eternal consequence. Ultimately is seems irrelevent in the context of salvation, so, who cares about such discipline?

Sandusky:

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.

I dont disagree, but Im starting to get confused - the faithful are disciplined and given joy to persevere or are the unfaithful disciplined?

Sandusky:

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

Thank you for your prayers, I appreciate it. Sometimes my emotions get the best of me. It is not really bitterness of heart, it is frustration. From my perspective you are like trying to nail jello to the wall resulting in frustration. You start in one place and then, when pressed, wiggle into another and ultimately will not be pinned down. Example? Lets rewind your take on the confession of sins/asking for forgiveness. You initiate with…

Sandman:

The question is, where is the believer

instructed to ask for forgiveness of sins?

Two passages are presented I John and Matt 6 (The Lords Prayer) and I comment that

Philthy:

Christ unambiguously tells us “If you do not forgive others…neither will your Heavenly Father forgive you…”

To which you respond with the odd statement:

It’s a parable, Phil, the point of which is, simply stated, that those forgiven by God must themselves be forgiving.

Odd because because its not a parable at all. So I respond with…

Really? At the request of his Apostles to be taught how to pray Jesus delivers the Lord’s Prayer. You think the Lord’s Prayer is a parable? All of it? And just so we’re clear on the “simply stated” point, what does the term “must themselves be” mean in your statement above? “Must be” otherwise…what? No doubt that will get tossed into the ever handy “loss of rewards” pile. That would be the same pile that doesnt affect our eternal happiness, right?

And you respond with

Sorry, Phil, I went to the parable in Mt 18, and my answer is the same: those forgiven by God must themselves be forgiving

.
So in one sentece, without addressing a single point of what I presented you simply end without actually defending what you presented - that believers are not instructed to ask for forgiveness, rather they are to be forgiving. Thats great, Sandy, and of course I dont disagree with it, but it doesnt address the issue at hand - whether believers are instructed to ask for forgiveness of their sins, does it? I mean I can ask for forgivenes of my sins and be forgiving of others - they aren’t mutually exclusive. So what have you said, exactly?
Apparently when I brought up the Lords prayer initially, you were somehow thinking of another parable when you gave your initial response. I can understand that. But then, when I point out the absurdity of the response(not realizing you mispoke) and you come to realize that you mispoke based upon your own error, what do you do? Do you address any of what I presented intially? Nope. Do you go back and address the actual portion of Scripture where Christ instructs his disciples to ask the Father to forgive their sins? No you dont. You just dismiss it as being no different than the parable you misunderstood it for and restate your original point. Your whole refutation was contigent upon the mistaken notion that Christ was somehow speaking figuratively in a parable, yet when confronted with the fact that it isnt a parable you simply choose to restate your original undefended premise without going back to address a single issue I raised or a single question asked! Perhaps you can see how that might be a little frustrating from my perspective. I am sorry, though, if my posting comes across as hard hearted - it should not be that way. I’ll try to be more patient and do appreciate your prayers and forgiveness.

 

[Philthy]

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.

Heavenly Father I thank you for the small consolation of knowing that at least one other share’s my thoughts. Help me to bring the joy of this small consolation to others who need it more desperately than I do. Amen.
:bowdown2:

 

[JRKH]

(Edited)

I never said they have "no foundation.”

Agreed you did not use those words. I apologize.
What you did say was that Jesus never taught a “Sola’s”

Originally Posted by 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.

Yes I’ve heard of “The Reformation”. However, this is no answer to my Question. If the Church that Christ instituted and existed for 1500 years was teaching error, By what revelation or authority can you be certain that the Teachings of the “Reformers” are correct?

See response #1.

Since the Post was edited by Michael Francis, I’m not sure wht this might refer to.

Originally Posted by 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.

I certainly hope you have mispoke here, for certainly you know that The Word of God who is Jesus Christ is the Authority over Scripture. It is the Holy Spirit of God who must grant us the Wisdom to Properly understand Scripture.
Unfortunately it is just the belief you state above that has led to the horrible splintering of Christ’s message into so many denominations.
There is but one True Sola and that is Christ, working through His Church.

Peace
James

 

[CentralFLJames]

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.

I can see why you would see it that way Sandusky. Your “either-or” system of thinking and doctrinal bias makes it impossible for you as a Protestant (A) to sit down with a Catholic (B) (or for that matter 2 Protestants) and ever agree with them that its even logically possible that both sides could be right or that both could be wrong on any arbitrary single topic of discussion. The semantic of opposition requires a contest of disagreement - thus is the nature of Protestantism in general.

That’s why a posture of “protest” (e.g. Protestantism) can never exist and prevail over its nemesis without defining itself in the tension of opposition to an existing standard. It is thus why Protestants find themselves in the peculiar position of never ever being able to agree with Catholics or getting rid of Catholics since you need us to define your identity and to draw purpose for even existing. Going the other way - Catholics do not need Protestants since we have no identity problem. We know who we are through positive acclamation and by continuity of existence. We know who we are and don’t need to know what we are not. In other words - Protestants define themselves only by what they are not (not Catholic). This same negative relational system in seen in parts of nature in decaying and dying things. Its called parasitical - a unilateral dependency. No matter if on the surface such a relational system might look vibrant, under the skin or surface it always smells and looks bad and is always self defeating - often for both host and parasite.

At some point the living host must amputate if they can’t heal and remedy it or else decompose with them.

James

 

[fhansen]

I think the Catholic position on works could be clarified. For someone who comes to believe in Jesus, a transformation should begin to occur. Most Christians would agree with this. An example of a work which might come up at this time, by the grace of God and through the interior work of the HS convicting one of sin or of a need, is a prayer to the Father to increase, say, ones love for others, or for more faith or patience, believing that God won’t refuse a request for any good thing. This is an act or expression of faith. Another might be when, moved by compassion, we decide to visit prisoners or feed the poor, or witness to someone about the reality and love of God. Whenever we step out in faith like this, we are always rewarded in some way-and our faith and love for God grow even greater. This is a process which is part of our sanctification and I’m sure many Protestants and Catholics have experienced this. And as this transformation takes place-this growth in the knowledge of God, we grow in righteousness-we become more just-or justified. For a Catholic, this process must continue to take place until no unrighteousness is found in us and our love is perfected. All of this happens by means of Gods grace and our humility towards His offer of it. Legalism, on the other hand, is a matter of pride-our boasting of our “holiness” through observing the Law. One is a matter of the Spirit, the other a matter of the flesh.

 

[Thing]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandusky
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.

I can see why you would see it that way Sandusky. Your “either-or” system of thinking and doctrinal bias makes it impossible for you as a Protestant (A) to sit down with a Catholic (B) (or for that matter 2 Protestants) and ever agree with them that its even logically possible that both sides could be right or that both could be wrong on any arbitrary single topic of discussion. The semantic of opposition requires a contest of disagreement - thus is the nature of Protestantism in general.

That’s why a posture of “protest” (e.g. Protestantism) can never exist and prevail over its nemesis without defining itself in the tension of opposition to an existing standard. It is thus why Protestants find themselves in the peculiar position of never ever being able to agree with Catholics or getting rid of Catholics since you need us to define your identity and to draw purpose for even existing. Going the other way - Catholics do not need Protestants since we have no identity problem. We know who we are through positive acclamation and by continuity of existence. We know who we are and don’t need to know what we are not. In other words - Protestants define themselves only by what they are not (not Catholic). This same negative relational system in seen in parts of nature in decaying and dying things. Its called parasitical - a unilateral dependency. No matter if on the surface such a relational system might look vibrant, under the skin or surface it always smells and looks bad and is always self defeating - often for both host and parasite.

At some point the living host must amputate if they can’t heal and remedy it or else decompose with them.

I think Sandusky means to lunch on you not lunch with you - the big parasite!

 

[sandusky]

It is thus why Protestants find themselves in the peculiar position of never ever being able to agree with Catholics or getting rid of Catholics since you need us to define your identity and to draw purpose for even existing.

You have it backwards, because, IMO, you’re projecting, James.

You need Anti-Catholics to define your identity.

 

[sandusky]

I think the Catholic position on works could be clarified. For someone who comes to believe in Jesus, a transformation should begin to occur. Most Christians would agree with this. An example of a work which might come up at this time, by the grace of God and through the interior work of the HS convicting one of sin or of a need, is a prayer to the Father to increase, say, ones love for others, or for more faith or patience, believing that God won’t refuse a request for any good thing. This is an act or expression of faith. Another might be when, moved by compassion, we decide to visit prisoners or feed the poor, or witness to someone about the reality and love of God. Whenever we step out in faith like this, we are always rewarded in some way-and our faith and love for God grow even greater. This is a process which is part of our sanctification and I’m sure many Protestants and Catholics have experienced this. And as this transformation takes place-this growth in the knowledge of God, we grow in righteousness-we become more just-or justified. For a Catholic, this process must continue to take place until no unrighteousness is found in us and our love is perfected. All of this happens by means of Gods grace and our humility towards His offer of it. Legalism, on the other hand, is a matter of pride-our boasting of our “holiness” through observing the Law. One is a matter of the Spirit, the other a matter of the flesh.

The only disagreement I have is that I do find justification to be a one-time event, therefore, one is never more justified than at the moment one first believes, nor is any believer any more justified than any other believer. The difference between believers is found in sanctification. There it is certainly true that one believer may have more knowledge and understanding, and may be more mature than another believer.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

You have it backwards, because, IMO, you’re projecting, James.

You need Anti-Catholics to define your identity.

Protestants, by definition, are protesting something, namely, the one true Church.

One Church
What the Bible says about the one true Church founded by Jesus

 

[fhansen]

The only disagreement I have is that I do find justification to be a one-time event, therefore, one is never more justified than at the moment one first believes, nor is any believer any more justified than any other believer. The difference between believers is found in sanctification. There it is certainly true that one believer may have more knowledge and understanding, and may be more mature than another believer.

But what is sanctification besides the process of becoming more just/holy/righteous in actuality? The difference lies in the fact that this justice must be complete for a Catholic before entrance into heaven.

 

[Philthy]

You have it backwards, because, IMO, you’re projecting, James.

You need Anti-Catholics to define your identity.

You might be right here Sandy - I cant judge individual motives. The larger point, however, is that the Catholic Church does not need Protestants to define itself whereas Protestant ecclesial communities require the reference point of the visible Catholic Church to define their “protest”.

 

[moondweller]

Philthy:
You might be right here Sandy - I cant judge individual motives. The larger point, however, is that the Catholic Church does not need Protestants to define itself whereas Protestant ecclesial communities require the reference point of the visible Catholic Church to define their “protest”. Origin of the name Protestant:

"Germany was made up of a great many small states. Many princes, with their whole states, had been won to Luther’s cause. By 1540 all North Germany had become “Lutheran.” Pope Paul III urged the the Emperor Charles V to proceed against them, and offered him an army. The Pope declared the war a crusade, and offered indulgences to all who would take part. The war lasted from 1546 to 1555, ending with the Peace of Augsburg, by which the Lutherans won legal recognition of their religion.

The name “Protestant.” The Diet of Spires (A.D. 1529) at which Roman Catholics were in the majority ruled that Catholics could teach their religion in Lutheran States, but forbade Lutheran teaching in Catholic states, in Germany. Against this the Lutheran Princes made formal protest, and henceforth were known as “Protestants.”" (Halley’s Bible Handbook)

So you see, Phil, the name originated with the Catholics actually protesting against the Lutherans, eventually by the Pope declaring all out war against them, backed by indulgences.

Since the Apostolic age, the gospel of salvation, the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ alone (Acts 10:43; 13:38; Col. 1:14), has always been met with great opposition.

 

[moondweller]

But what is sanctification besides the process of becoming more just/holy/righteous in actuality?

In “actuality” the believer’s holiness (sanctification) and righteousness IS actual "in Christ."1 Cor 1:30 "But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,"This isn’t in theory, it’s actual.

The difference lies in the fact that this justice must be complete for a Catholic before entrance into heaven.

Yes. And the difference is that we understand (and believe) that this divine justice was met and completed at the cross of Christ. And as Paul says, “the righteous shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:16-17; cf. Gal. 2:20). “The righteous,” this side of the cross, are those who have been justified (reckoned righteous, giftwise), by faith, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus (Rom. 3:24; 4:4-5).

 

[Thing]

Origin of the name Protestant:

"Germany was made up of a great many small states. Many princes, with their whole states, had been won to Luther’s cause. By 1540 all North Germany had become “Lutheran.” Pope Paul III urged the the Emperor Charles V to proceed against them, and offered him an army. The Pope declared the war a crusade, and offered indulgences to all who would take part. The war lasted from 1546 to 1555, ending with the Peace of Augsburg, by which the Lutherans won legal recognition of their religion.

The name “Protestant.” The Diet of Spires (A.D. 1529) at which Roman Catholics were in the majority ruled that Catholics could teach their religion in Lutheran States, but forbade Lutheran teaching in Catholic states, in Germany. Against this the Lutheran Princes made formal protest, and henceforth were known as “Protestants.”" (Halley’s Bible Handbook)

So you see, Phil, the name originated with the Catholics actually protesting against the Lutherans, eventually by the Pope declaring all out war against them, backed by indulgences.

Since the Apostolic age, the gospel of salvation, the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ alone (Acts 10:43; 13:38; Col. 1:14), has always been met with great opposition.

Many princes, with their whole states, had been won to Luther’s cause?

Luther did not like them, the German princes, - they were for the most part areligious, and simply adapted Luthers’ anti-Catholicism to help them attack and resist the advancing Holy Roman Empire.

Since the Apostolic age, the gospel of salvation, the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ alone (Acts 10:43; 13:38; Col. 1:14), has always been met with great opposition.

By the Apostle St. James.
God bless St. James, I saw his tomb.

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

 

[moondweller]

By the Apostle St. James.
God bless St. James, I saw his tomb.

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

James never taught that sins were forgiven through works.

 

[CentralFLJames]

You have it backwards, because, IMO, you’re projecting, James.

You need Anti-Catholics to define your identity.

I was speaking of “you” in the sense of the plurality of Protestants - not you personally. Are you (personally) now trying to assert that Catholics as a Faith need Protestants or are you saying that I personally need anti-Catholics to define my own personal identity?

If it’s the prior case that is absurd. Just examine the undisputed history of who proceeded who and which came out of the other. Further, Catholics have always taken Christ as the full Word of God and have thus been a Christ-centric religion through apostolic teaching and revelation. Protestants as a denomination (although there were other heresies before then) did not exist until the 1500’s. They came into being as a protest to the Catholic apostolic view of Christ (using some valid ecclesial abuses as a justification to try to redefine all of Christianity). So Protestants have always defined themselves in opposition to the Catholic view and have become a “Bible-Centric” rather than a Christ-centric religion through private interpretation. This was the only way to make the attempt to usurp apostolic/papal authority and give a false moral basis for rebellion.

If your assertion is the second case about me personally then you are making an ad-hominem attack on me personally that is without substance nor force. I recognize that Christ has realigned all of Creation toward Himself and His nature. Thus I acknowledge that each person by virtue of God becoming man through Christ is given a universal (Catholic) Christ-like dignity and the potential and inclination to be a Son of God (if they hold to the proper faith and teachings and conducts). It would be incongruous as well as non-concrete for me (or anyone) to define myself in terms of opposites to a system with no standards or boundaries. Catholicism is order, authority, structure and Christo-centric orthodoxy; while also mystical it is also very concrete and defined. So it would be objectively uncatholic as well as irrational for me to derive my own personal identity through an in-opposition-to methodology that takes a fuzzy counter belief to the large plurality of diverse, orthogonal and ever foggy secular and Protestant belief systems. The opposite of that system would not be a monolithic system like Catholicism - it would be a grotesque and ever shifting fog that mirrors another fog.

Pragmatically a human mind could never wrap itself around so many contradictions to objectively define itself as a many splendored (sarcastically spoken) counter-instance of contradiction unless one was self-possessed toward a schizophrenic sort of identity of the kind the bible calls “legion”. Sorry, if your intention is to characterize me thusly you fail since I have just demonstrated that I am a rational being and reason clearly. Let me also point out that philosophically speaking good does not need to define itself as the opposite of evil any more so than good needs evil to exist. Good is axiomatic - self evident. If this were not true then our founding principals on Natural Law as a nation are doomed.

In either of the two cases I believe I have just proved that you have just made two negative (false) assertions. So in either of the systems of thinking (OR or XOR) that I mentioned previously you are shown to be wrong. That is, under each way of thinking two false conjectures always make the concluding assertion false. It would be a miracle if we agreed here.

So regrettably I am now disinclined to take you up on your offer for lunch since on balance (75% of the time) you don’t seem to be an agreeable type. Odds are if we did meet you would probably protest that I am not “me” and insist I am who I am not - and that would make me you and leave you alone to pick up the tab. Though I admit it might be an entertaining encounter. But charity and self denial are probably more virtuous than gratuitous self-indulgence.

James

 

[Thing]

James never taught that sins were forgiven through works.

Did you read your post again?

Here it is;
MD:

Since the Apostolic age, the gospel of salvation, the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ alone (Acts 10:43; 13:38; Col. 1:14), has always been met with great opposition.

The ‘Gospel of Salvation’ is not through Faith Alone.

Because; Faith dies without good works.

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

 

[moondweller]

Did you read your post again?

Here it is;

The ‘Gospel of Salvation’ is not through Faith Alone.

Because; Faith dies without good works.

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Yes, did you read it?"Since the Apostolic age, the gospel of salvation, the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ alone (Acts 10:43; 13:38; Col. 1:14), has always been met with great opposition."That Apostolic proclamation is fraught by opposition even today. It will be until the end of the age.

 

[Thing]

Yes, did you read it?"Since the Apostolic age, the gospel of salvation, the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ alone (Acts 10:43; 13:38; Col. 1:14), has always been met with great opposition."That Apostolic proclamation is fraught by opposition even today. It will be until the end of the age.

Yes I read it, and I still see; Since the Apostolic age, the gospel of salvation, through faith … alone…

You said one is ‘saved through faith alone’, ‘the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins’ being equated with ‘salvation through Faith Alone’.

The Apostle, however, says this to you about Faith Alone - if you believe Faith Alone ‘saves’ you; 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?