How are we saved?

[happymommy]

Oh I agree totally-I was playing the devils advocate.
My original comment was intended to add understanding to MDs claim that “good works are a manifestation” of salvation, but not a condition of it. Such claims appear to make good sense until one presses the issue a little by exploring such questions as,
“Are good works, then, how you recognize someone as saved?” and,
“If one lacks such works is that an indication of a lack of salvation?”
And the answer from the OSAS adherent in each case is an emphatic…“No!” That response simply leaves us confused as to how good works are a “manifestation of salvation” when - in the context of OSAS theology - the unsaved can also manifest good works; and the saved can fail to manifest good works.
So why all the talk in Scripture about good works - especially in James? OSASers try to view his entire point of “A man is justified by works …” into “A man is shown to be saved by works…” when, in fact, they dont actually beleive a man is shown to be righteous by good works because, as I pointed out above, both the saved and unsaved can do good works, and both the saved and unsaved can fail to do them.

I have been enjoying your posts - keep up the “good work”!

Your are right about the good works. I wouldn think that if you are saved you should want to do good for others and live your life like Christ, but not everyone does. That’s why you shouldn’t try to judge or “guess” if someone is saved. You never know what is in someone’s heart.

 

[By_His_Mercy]

We are saved by believing that Jesus Christ is the Savior and asking Him into your heart to be your guide through this life and into the next. It’s really quite simple when you think about it. But you have to really believe He is your salvation. Not just believe He exisisted. You have to believe he died for you sins, confess those sins and make Him the biggest part of your life.

Yes, but this is an encapsulation of the “what”…true believers will be saved…but then how does God save them?

Does God impute righteousness only? Are the works in John 5:28-29, Matt 25:31-46 (sheep and goats) imputed works?

Does God forgive our sin and make us righteous…so we’ll “pass”, say, Rom 2:5-10, John 5:28-29, Matt 25:31-46 etc.?

Much of the Catholic/Protestant division centers around “how” God saves us. Sometimes it seems merely academic, but the divisions are really serious, so it really needs to be discussed.

 

[sandusky]

By His Mercy:

Yes, I believe we all believe that. The elect will persevere. But Protestants make God’s workmanship in the believer (sanctification) separate from justification. They say sanctification doesn’t keep one from being condemned…justification does. But I think here we see that justification includes sanctification…so I think the Catholic side is right.

Justification includes sanctification; however, though the two are closely linked, they are distinct from one another.
By His Mercy:

I think all of the “we must cooperate” stuff at Trent was dealing with retaining our free will (many thought Luther meant we had no free will)…not pelagianism or semipelagianism, both of which were condemned by the RCC long ago.

Luther did not say “we have no free will,” but that unregenerate man’s will is in bondage to sin:**Romans 3:9

What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;

John 8:34

Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.** The Lord’s own words.

 

[By_His_Mercy]

Oh I agree totally-I was playing the devils advocate.
My original comment was intended to add understanding to MDs claim that “good works are a manifestation” of salvation, but not a condition of it. Such claims appear to make good sense until one presses the issue a little by exploring such questions as,
“Are good works, then, how you recognize someone as saved?” and,
“If one lacks such works is that an indication of a lack of salvation?”
And the answer from the OSAS adherent in each case is an emphatic…“No!” That response simply leaves us confused as to how good works are a “manifestation of salvation” when - in the context of OSAS theology - the unsaved can also manifest good works; and the saved can fail to manifest good works.
So why all the talk in Scripture about good works - especially in James? OSASers try to view his entire point of “A man is justified by works …” into “A man is shown to be saved by works…” when, in fact, they dont actually beleive a man is shown to be righteous by good works because, as I pointed out above, both the saved and unsaved can do good works, and both the saved and unsaved can fail to do them.

I have been enjoying your posts - keep up the “good work”!

Ah, OK. So you’re Catholic also? I’m new here, I don’t know who’s who.

Part of the problem here is what people mean by “salvation”. I think it’s being spared from the outpouring of God’s wrath (people being thrown into the lake of fire)…which isn’t going on now. So nobody is saved…you have to have something to be saved from. But I believe God saves…He’s in the process of drawing us near, bringing about our repentance, forgiving our sins, molding us into godly children, etc. so we will be saved in the future on that day.

Scripture sometimes says we’re been saved…but it also says those He justified He glorified (all past tense). I think Scripture sometimes references these things in the past tense when describing salvation as a whole…and also how the parts fit together (e.g., a chain of causalities)…not that these things are finished (we’re not glorified yet).

God bless you!

 

[By_His_Mercy]

Justification includes sanctification; however, though the two are closely linked, they are distinct from one another.

But I was taught as a protestant that justification in no way includes sanctification. I think the whole “righteousness of God” is something entirely new…outside the scope of previous secular usages of this terminology. Scripture says those who are justified will be glorified. But then the Lord disciplines us so we won’t be condemned with the world. So to me, that means that justification includes sanctification. I think justification here involves forgiveness of sin (legal) plus God’s workmanship…sanctification. Otherwise, if God’s workmanship is lacking, one would be condemned (i.e., not justified).

Luther did not say “we have no free will,” but that unregenerate man’s will is in bondage to sin:Romans 3:9
But throughout his “bondage” book he continually said “freewill” doesn’t exist. I believe what you say is correct, but I think many people on the street thought it just meant that…so that had to be addressed. I think Trent tried to address the reformers and also the people in the pews who had confused ideas of all that was going on.

What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin

;

John 8:34

Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The Lord’s own words.

Yes, our nature was tainted (flesh, concupiscience). But just because someone has a particular nature doesn’t mean they don’t have free will. And then if God changes one’s nature, they still have free will…they just choose different things. Now, who God chooses to regenerate is outside of our wills…but that doesn’t negate our human free will before and after regeneration. (Obviously I’m Thomistic…which is an acceptabe view in the Catholic Church.) We had a bad old nature…we chose our favorite sins…we get a new nature (by grace), we choose to love others more, etc. It’s still us that chooses.

The idea of human free will means that we’re accountable for our own actions…someone else isn’t accountable. So in principle, we could obey God’s commands. We just had a selfish nature and, knowing that the law was good, still disobeyed. So we weren’t forced to sin…we knew better. I think this means we still have free will…otherwise on judgment day we could say “you caused this…I couldn’t choose…therefore I’m not responsible”. We could have chosen…we had sufficient grace. Paul said in Rom 1 that they are without excuse…although they “knew God” they didn’t give Him thanks (1:21). “Without excuse”, I think, means that in principle they could have obeyed. Otherwise they have an excuse (“I couldn’t choose…I’m not responsible”).

 

[sandusky]

By His Mercy:

But I was taught as a protestant that justification in no way includes sanctification. I think the whole “righteousness of God” is something entirely new…outside the scope of previous secular usages of this terminology. Scripture says those who are justified will be glorified. But then the Lord disciplines us so we won’t be condemned with the world. So to me, that means that justification includes sanctification. I think justification here involves forgiveness of sin (legal) plus God’s workmanship…sanctification. Otherwise, if God’s workmanship is lacking, one would be condemned (i.e., not justified).

Salvation is a package which includes, mercy, grace, foreknowledge, election, predestination, justification, sanctification, glorification.

But throughout his “bondage” book he continually said “freewill” doesn’t exist. I believe what you say is correct, but I think many people on the street thought it just meant that…so that had to be addressed. I think Trent tried to address the reformers and also the people in the pews who had confused ideas of all that was going on.

Post-fall freewill doesn’t exist in the sense that man is as Adam was before the fall.

What Luther is saying is that unregenerate man has lost the ability to choose between good or evil, but that he only desires evil.

Had Luther believed that freewill didn’t exist in the way you’re understanding him, he would have titled his book, the ABSENCE of the will, rather than, the BONDAGE of the will.
By His Mercy:

Yes, our nature was tainted (flesh, concupiscience).

That minimizes the effect of the fall. Note the life/death analogy offered by the Lord and Paul
(Jn 3:3ff; Eph 2:1ff). Those are not accidental, and meaningless analogies.
By His Mercy:

The idea of human free will means that we’re accountable for our own actions…someone else isn’t accountable. So in principle, we could obey God’s commands. We just had a selfish nature and, knowing that the law was good, still disobeyed. So we weren’t forced to sin…we knew better. I think this means we still have free will…otherwise on judgment day we could say “you caused this…I couldn’t choose…therefore I’m not responsible”. We could have chosen…we had sufficient grace. Paul said in Rom 1 that they are without excuse…although they “knew God” they didn’t give Him thanks (1:21). “Without excuse”, I think, means that in principle they could have obeyed. Otherwise they have an excuse (“I couldn’t choose…I’m not responsible”).

Correct, and that’s a huge tension: God is absolutely sovereign in all things, and you are accountable for your actions (Acts 2:22, 23; Lk 22:22).

 

[By_His_Mercy]

Salvation is a package which includes, mercy, grace, foreknowledge, election, predestination, justification, sanctification, glorification.

Yes…add calling also. And the package is received by grace…not by any works we did in the flesh.

Post-fall freewill doesn’t exist in the sense that man is as Adam was before the fall.

This is a sticky issue…I’m not sure how to word it. I do think we still have free will in the sense that we do choose and in principle we could obey God…perhaps for the wrong reasons, but the flesh still knows right from wrong, weighs alternatives, weighs chances of being caught, etc. I guess I’m not sure I’d say it the way you do right here…I tend to think our free will is just our choosing, our morality…regardless of how tainted it is. I think before and after our conversion we still thought and weighed…knew right from wrong…but when God renews us we have different motives. But I think this is independent on whether or not we have free will.

What Luther is saying is that unregenerate man has lost the ability to choose between good or evil, but that he only desires evil.

I’m not sure…he probably is speaking from Rom 3:10-12. But at the same time man knows the good and weighs his decisions (albeit from a selfish motive) and does choose for himself, in spite of his corrupt nature. He isn’t forced…it’s not determinism, lest he could say “I’m not responsible”. I really think we have to have the ability to choose to be responsible.

Had Luther believed that freewill didn’t exist in the way you’re understanding him, he would have titled his book, the ABSENCE of the will, rather than, the BONDAGE of the will.

I don’t think anyone thinks the will is absent, but some might think the freedom of the will is absent. I don’t think that’s the case. I think our nature is bound to be evil, but we still weigh (knowingly) and choose. I’d describe this as concupiscience, not the lack of free will. I think Luther was misunderstood due to his wording. Have you read “Bondage of the Will”? He says freewill doesn’t exist over and over…perhaps hundreds of times. That threw people off.

That minimizes the effect of the fall. Note the life/death analogy offered by the Lord and Paul
(Jn 3:3ff; Eph 2:1ff). Those are not accidental, and meaningless analogies.

Yes, I do think man died spiritually and morally…we chose to be our own God, to know good and evil for ourselves. I think that’s behind the “no one does good” in Rom 3. But that doesn’t mean we don’t have free will. Everyone has a nature…and a free will. One’s nature affects their decisions…but I’d never go as far as to say one doesn’t have free will. Imagine those at Trent, and the all those people in the pews…they’re taught we have no free will (“hey, I’m not responsible now”)! What do you think will happen? We are all still responsible, so we must choose God’s way…and this implies we can choose either way.

Correct, and that’s a huge tension: God is absolutely sovereign in all things, and you are accountable for your actions (Acts 2:22, 23; Lk 22:22).

Yes, but God can be sovereign and we still don’t need determinism (no free will). For instance, instead of forcing my son to be loving, I can raise him up to be loving and let him go…and hopefully he’ll choose to be loving by my (name removed by moderator)ut over the years. This example isn’t perfect, because children can rebel, but since God is omniscent and omnipotent, He can “raise” us His way without forcing our hand…we can be changed (new nature) so we’ll choose His way naturally.

Anyway, this is a sticky subject!

God bless you!

 

[Philthy]

Ah, OK. So you’re Catholic also? I’m new here, I don’t know who’s who.

If you want to view someone’s personal profile, just left click on their name (Right above the Re: “How are we saved” ) and choose the first option from the drop down menu “View Public Profile”

 

[Philthy]

Correct, and that’s a huge tension: God is absolutely sovereign in all things, and you are accountable for your actions (Acts 2:22, 23; Lk 22:22).

It kinda goes beyond a “tension”, dontcha think? I mean God is sovereign yet we are responsible - it seems like a contradiction, not merely a tension. Mystery, perhaps, but mere tension?
Just so you know, I went to get Boetner’s writings on free will that you referred me to a couple months back, but they wanted money! I hesitated to pay for it for a couple reasons:

• Keatings critique of his treatment of Catholicism was scathing - I wasnt sure he was worth paying for
• I would have thought that this material was available for free by now. Is it?
  I went to some other Reformed website to read up on their treatment of free will. I could not get a good, solid understanding of the words “predestined”, “predetermined” etc. My issue involved the notion of cause: when it is said that God “predestines” an event, does it simultaneously mean that when it occurs that He, ultimately, is the cause of the event?