How does a Catholic increase the chance of getting into Heaven?

[WASP]

Salvation is the freedom from the bondage of slavery to sin.

It is not eternal life in heaven.

As such, salvation is a process, because we are capable of binding ourselves back to sin throughout our lives…

Christ’s atonement made possible what once was not possible…and that is the unbinding of the shackles of sin. Before Christ, we were doomed in slavery.

Christ’s death gave us the key where once it was non-existent…but we must unlock the chains with His help and grace…and we must keep ourselves in His light, lest we re-shackle ourselves to the very sin He came to free us from.

When we die, our eternal destination is based on whether we are still bound to the shackles of sin, or we are satisfactorily unbound.

All by the Grace of God.

I actually agree that “salvation is a process.” In fact, we Protestants normally describe it as justification-sanctification-glorification.

I vote for all Protestants in this forum to discard the word “saved” from any of our posts. :newidea: Let’s use the word “regeneration” (John 3:1-14). That’s what we really mean. We mean that, according to John 5:24, we “have passed from death to life.” Note: The verb translated “have passed” is in the perfect aspect, demonstrating that it’s a once-for-all change in situation. Life, in the Gospel of John, refers both to quality and duration. Yes, we have forever passed from death and judgment into the divine life.

That’s what we mean when we use the word “saved.” So let’s shut down the use of the word “saved” and use “regeneration”.

 

[WASP]

If what you said were true the following scriptural verses would not be in the bible:

VI. I Have Been Saved (past event) …
VII. I Am Being Saved (present event) …
VIII. I Will Be Saved (future event)

James

@James, you would definitely make a good Reformed Protestant. Excellent presentation of the 3 aspects of salvation. One can find that essential description in The Moody Handbook of Theology, pp. 329-330. That Handbook is about as conservative as Protestantism gets.

It has been also described in these terms:

• justification / sanctification / glorification
• positional sanctification / progressive sanctification / perfect sanctification
• positional sanctification / experiential sanctification / ultimate sanctification
• Freedom from: The Penalty of Sin / The Power of Sin / The Presence of Sin

Of course, if you leave the Dark Side and come to a Protestant (may I say Biblical?) understanding of Justification :hug3: , I’ll have to tutor you in the area of hermeneutics, starting with Paul’s use of the word “hope” to describe a certainty. It’s not the modern English use of the word, as in “I hope there will be a High School Musical 4.” Paul uses the word as a sure thing.

We will continue with an exegesis of Colossians 1:23. In that verse, Paul uses an indicative verb, not a conditional one–even though the English appears to be conditional because of the word “if”. Paul essentially says “you *will *continue.” Thus, both of the following are true: 1) We *must *endure to the end to be saved, and 2) We *will *endure to the end and will be saved. In no time at all, you’ll be saying Amen as you read Calvin’s Institutes.

 

[brb2]

I actually agree that “salvation is a process.” In fact, we Protestants normally describe it as justification-sanctification-glorification.

I vote for all Protestants in this forum to discard the word “saved” from any of our posts. :newidea: Let’s use the word “regeneration” (John 3:1-14). That’s what we really mean. We mean that, according to John 5:24, we “have passed from death to life.” ".

Good luck getting all Protestants to sing from the same hymn book.
You will find more commonality with Catholics, who are unified, and sing on tune.

Now, lets see if you can agree with St. Augustine’s choice of the word Regeneration … St. Augustine 421 A.D. /// The Enchiridion of Faith, Hope, and Love.

“With the exception of the gift of Baptism, which is given against original sin, so that what was brought by GENERATION might be taken away by REGENERATION, — though it also takes away actual sins, such as have ever been committed in thought, word, or deed, — except, therefore, for this great indulgence whereby man’s restoration begins and in which all his guilt, both original and actual, is removed, the rest of our life from the age of the use of reason, however much that life may abound in righteousness, is always in need of forgiveness of sins … From the fact, however, that every crime is a sin, it does not follow that every sin is a crime. Certainly we say that the lives of holy men, though they lived in this mortal body, can be found to have been without crime; but the Apostle says plainly; 'If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us”.

“For the daily sins of the brief and trivial kind WITHOUT WHICH THIS LIFE CANNOT BE LIVED, the DAILY PRAYER OF THE FAITHFUL makes satisfaction. The faithful can say: “Our Father, who art in heaven”; for to such a Father they are ALREADY REBORN OF WATER AND THE SPIRIT. This prayer takes away COMPLETELY our LESSER AND DAILY sins.”

Could Calvin ever match Augustine’s superlative insights? Not that he needs to

 

[CentralFLJames]

@James, you would definitely make a good Reformed Protestant. Excellent presentation of the 3 aspects of salvation. One can find that essential description in The Moody Handbook of Theology, pp. 329-330. That Handbook is about as conservative as Protestantism gets.

It has been also described in these terms:

• justification / sanctification / glorification
• positional sanctification / progressive sanctification / perfect sanctification
• positional sanctification / experiential sanctification / ultimate sanctification
• Freedom from: The Penalty of Sin / The Power of Sin / The Presence of Sin

Of course, if you leave the Dark Side and come to a Protestant (may I say Biblical?) understanding of Justification :hug3: , I’ll have to tutor you in the area of hermeneutics, starting with Paul’s use of the word “hope” to describe a certainty. It’s not the modern English use of the word, as in “I hope there will be a High School Musical 4.” Paul uses the word as a sure thing.

We will continue with an exegesis of Colossians 1:23. In that verse, Paul uses an indicative verb, not a conditional one–even though the English appears to be conditional because of the word “if”. Paul essentially says “you *will *continue.” Thus, both of the following are true: 1) We *must *endure to the end to be saved, and 2) We *will *endure to the end and will be saved. In no time at all, you’ll be saying Amen as you read Calvin’s Institutes.

Sorry Bro - I’d NEVER consider Protestantism legitimate. There is no precedence in “the bible” for a revolt in God’s Church. The closest we have is Kora’s rebellion and God incinerated his men into ash and swallowed their familes and possessions into hell. Not a good example to be following.

No, Protestantism is anathema to me and is so far removed from apostolic teaching and shot full of strange secular-humanistic doctrines and speculative-theology that if Catholicism did not require me to accept Protestants as “seperated” brethren I would not not be inclined to call most of you all “Christian”. Each new generation of Protestantism falls farther and farther from the true apostolic teaching. It’s so bad now that many Protestants no longer even believe in the necessity of a water baptism with a trinitarian formula – these I simply CAN NOT accept as Christians at all and see as something more like secular-newage Deists who (mostly) hold to some good Christian morals (except too many Protestants find it perfectly OK to divorce, abort children, permit homosexual marriages, fornicate and have sex out of marriage etc.).

Catholics have been teaching an ongoing sanctification and the reality that some souls could “fall away” 1400 years before the reformer’s pagan forefathers even has a twinkle in their eye to sire their rebellious children. At no time in the history of the Church was there ever taught any notion of “salvation” as a sure thing. There is no merit to even thinking in terms of “saved” since it’s a presumptuous sort of thinking that invites all kinds of problems – not the least is the grave sin of presuming upon God’s mercy. Salvation was always a thing that could be rejected or forfeited in later life - as we see with Judas and through the struggles of the apostles in learning to walk with The Lord and being perfected in Christ (John, James, Peter, Thomas etc.). And then there are the false Christians (e.g. Simon Magus) – and those who walk away never to return (e.g. see John 6:66 of those lip-service only Christians who refused to believe in real-presence and the necessity to eat the body & blood of The Lord).

You can back-read anything you care to into Paul’s words - and most all Protestants who hold to a sola-fide teaching do. The truth is Paul was Catholic and he would be appalled to hear what some self-styled neo-Christians are trying to put into his mouth through private interpretation of his works. I think Paul would be most offended by the implicit message of the Protestant sola-fide concept of a “lone Ranger” Christianity seperate from The Church. Paul saw the Church as the COVENANTAL vehicle by which we are saved. He never had any notion of a personal Lord and Saviour seperate from The Church since He say Christ as forming a new covenant people - where “God’s people are saved” over individuals outside of the church being saved.

I am sorry but your teaching is wrong. Paul never meant to convey the wrong headed notion that people MUST continue in the faith and prevail because they can not possibly do anything less. Freewill can elect at any time to walk away from God and we are not mindless robots to grace. OSAS is just a way for people to reject taking responsibility for their own actions and say “the devil made me do it” and then keep right on doing something sinful or not worrying about it. It is what leads to people saying such silly things as “the devil made me do it”.

James

 

[guanophore]

I actually agree that “salvation is a process.” In fact, we Protestants normally describe it as justification-sanctification-glorification.

I vote for all Protestants in this forum to discard the word “saved” from any of our posts. :newidea: Let’s use the word “regeneration” (John 3:1-14). That’s what we really mean. We mean that, according to John 5:24, we “have passed from death to life.” Note: The verb translated “have passed” is in the perfect aspect, demonstrating that it’s a once-for-all change in situation. Life, in the Gospel of John, refers both to quality and duration. Yes, we have forever passed from death and judgment into the divine life.

That’s what we mean when we use the word “saved.” So let’s shut down the use of the word “saved” and use “regeneration”.

I think it is a great idea. Problem is, a regenerated person has become a partaker of the HS, and has tasted of the heavenly gift.

 

[brb2]

According to St. Augustine, Heaven can be a Certainty for a Catholic. I must admit I was pleasantly SHOCKED, to discover the Salvation Certitude idea originated from perhaps Catholicism’s most prolific Godfather. Especially, since it is Protestants who usually promote the OSAS ideas.

But, the Bishop of Hippo does note that its not necessarily a certainty … unless a Catholic desires to accept the reality.

---

“We are speaking of that PERSEVERANCE by which one perseveres to the end. If this is given, one does persevere to the end; and if one does not persevere to the end, it was not given … Since no one has perseverance to the end unless he does in fact persevere to the end, many may have it, and NONE CAN LOSE IT. It is not to be feared that when a man has persevered to the end some evil will many arise in him so that he does not persevere to the end. This GIFT OF GOD, therefore, CAN BE OBTAINED BY SUPPLICATION; but when it has been given, it CANNOT BE LOST BY CONTUMACY.”

St. Augustine, 428 A.D. /// The Gift of Perseverance

---

If a Catholic petitions God by Prayer/Supplication … it will be GIFTED to the convert, and Cannot be lost. This would appear the ultimate way a Catholic can have Heavenly Assurance

 

[WASP]

Good luck getting all Protestants to sing from the same hymn book.
You will find more commonality with Catholics, who are unified, and sing on tune.QUOTE]

Leaving aside the arguments of how truly monolithic the Roman Catholic has been, for the sake of this post, I would say that the Church has one set of doctrines she officially teaches (as laid out in the CCC). When I first considered Catholicism, one of the things that is very appealing is that there is a structure to it. You ask one priest about official teaching and he should give you the same answer as if you asked another. That is awesome.

However, I strongly feel that Augustine had it right when he wrote about how deeply corrupted (not just affected) by sin we are. I reject the notion of free will, as I believe Paul clearly does in Romans. Therefore, out of that rejection of free will, I believe that we cannot cooperate with grace. God gives us the faith we need to respond to Him.

This belief is worth the risk of being a rebel.

 

[WASP]

According to St. Augustine, Heaven can be a Certainty for a Catholic. I must admit I was pleasantly SHOCKED, to discover the Salvation Certitude idea originated from perhaps Catholicism’s most prolific Godfather. Especially, since it is Protestants who usually promote the OSAS ideas.

But, the Bishop of Hippo does note that its not necessarily a certainty … unless a Catholic desires to accept the reality.

---

“We are speaking of that PERSEVERANCE by which one perseveres to the end. If this is given, one does persevere to the end; and if one does not persevere to the end, it was not given … Since no one has perseverance to the end unless he does in fact persevere to the end, many may have it, and NONE CAN LOSE IT. It is not to be feared that when a man has persevered to the end some evil will many arise in him so that he does not persevere to the end. This GIFT OF GOD, therefore, CAN BE OBTAINED BY SUPPLICATION; but when it has been given, it CANNOT BE LOST BY CONTUMACY.”

St. Augustine, 428 A.D. /// The Gift of Perseverance

---

If a Catholic petitions God by Prayer/Supplication … it will be GIFTED to the convert, and Cannot be lost. This would appear the ultimate way a Catholic can have Heavenly Assurance

This may be the start of the Protestant “Prayer of Salvation.”

Also, Augustine’s teaching presumably is largely affected by 1 John 2:19: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.”

How can you tell if someone perseveres to the end? They persevere to the end. If they don’t, we know they were not believers in the first place.

BTW, I’m gonna start using the word ‘contumacy’. Good word.

 

[CentralFLJames]

brb2;5577604:

Good luck getting all Protestants to sing from the same hymn book.
You will find more commonality with Catholics, who are unified, and sing on tune.

Leaving aside the arguments of how truly monolithic the Roman Catholic has been, for the sake of this post, I would say that the Church has one set of doctrines she officially teaches (as laid out in the CCC). When I first considered Catholicism, one of the things that is very appealing is that there is a structure to it. You ask one priest about official teaching and he should give you the same answer as if you asked another. That is awesome.

However, I strongly feel that Augustine had it right when he wrote about how deeply corrupted (not just affected) by sin we are. I reject the notion of free will, as I believe Paul clearly does in Romans. Therefore, out of that rejection of free will, I believe that we cannot cooperate with grace. God gives us the faith we need to respond to Him.

This belief is worth the risk of being a rebel.

I am sorry but I see this as a completely irrational position to take. You believe that man is totally depraved yet you form that opinion with a corrupt mind to arrive at a conclusion that you must admit is highly corrupted. How can you trust a thing you say or believe? Maybe you should adapt a contrarian view and do the exact opposite of what your evil mind is telling you and assume you are not totally depraved and not a mindless robot who can do nothing - not even trust his own mind to “believe that he is saved”. This kind of thinking must lead to insanity at some point where you can’t trust anything in your environment to be real.

The reformers have utterly polluted the intellect with a cloud of doubt and paranoia and covered it over with false assurances that everything will be ok if they just believe as they do – and that is to believe in nothing but their own corrupt teachings. How pathetic of a theology it is where men who would swear on the bible they are utterly corrupt and can do no good will in the same breath swear that we should trust their reformed theology as the God given truth without a single sign or wonder to validate a thing they said. At best the only wonder is in observing how they mostly managed to escape being interned in the state mental ward and escaping each other’s persecution and condemnation and actually got people to follow and support them.

James

 

[brb2]

brb2;5577604:

However, I strongly feel that Augustine had it right when he wrote about how deeply corrupted (not just affected) by sin we are. I reject the notion of free will, as I believe Paul clearly does in Romans. Therefore, out of that rejection of free will, I believe that we cannot cooperate with grace. God gives us the faith we need to respond to Him.

This belief is worth the risk of being a rebel.

QUOTE]

On Topic of free will & grace… Some more St.A.

"To be able to have faith, just as to be able to have love, belongs to men by nature; but actually to have faith, as also actually to have love, BELONGS TO THE FAITHFUL BY GRACE. That nature, therefore, in which the possibility of having faith is given to us, does not distinguish one man from another; but faith itself distinguishes the believer from the unbeliever. And consequently, where it is said: “For who distinguishes you? And what have you that you did not receive”, anyone who would dare to say: “I have FAITH FROM MYSELF; therefore , I did not receive it,” would certainly contradict this most evident truth, not because to believe or not to believe is not in the choice of the human will, but because in the elect “the will is prepared by the Lord”.

---

So, it would appear its not a question of having faith, since even the natural man has it … but, whether our faith is of natural or supernatural origins. The natural man exercises his free will to reject the supernatural. Those who receive/accept grace … deny their free will option to reject God’s calling, via supernatural faith given them.

 

[guanophore]

God gives us the faith we need to respond to Him.

This belief is worth the risk of being a rebel.

How is that “rebellion”? this is what the Catholic Church teaches!

 

[WASP]

I am sorry but I see this as a completely irrational position to take. You believe that man is totally depraved yet you form that opinion with a corrupt mind to arrive at a conclusion that you must admit is highly corrupted. How can you trust a thing you say or believe? Maybe you should adapt a contrarian view and do the exact opposite of what your evil mind is telling you and assume you are not totally depraved and not a mindless robot who can do nothing - not even trust his own mind to “believe that he is saved”. This kind of thinking must lead to insanity at some point where you can’t trust anything in your environment to be real.

The reformers have utterly polluted the intellect with a cloud of doubt and paranoia and covered it over with false assurances that everything will be ok if they just believe as they do – and that is to believe in nothing but their own corrupt teachings. How pathetic of a theology it is where men who would swear on the bible they are utterly corrupt and can do no good will in the same breath swear that we should trust their reformed theology as the God given truth without a single sign or wonder to validate a thing they said. At best the only wonder is in observing how they mostly managed to escape being interned in the state mental ward and escaping each other’s persecution and condemnation and actually got people to follow and support them.

James

I would be irrational to believe that a man is still corrupted in sin even after he has been given faith supernaturally by God. Yes, if I did not have faith in Christ, you would be right in question my sanity. But those who have faith have passed from death to life (John 5:24) and are not left in their corrupt state. We still struggle with the sinful flesh, but Christians now share in the divine nature. You may disagree with my conclusions, but they are logically coherent and rational within my system of belief.

 

[WASP]

How is that “rebellion”? this is what the Catholic Church teaches!

Because I believe that we are regenerated and have eternal life at the first moment of our faith response.

 

[moondweller]

CentralFlJames:

If you are going to ignore the 24/7 worship of the Catholic Church and it’s focus on being in a state of grace to give proper prayer and sacrifice of the Holy Mass & its unequaled commitment to charity and advancing human dignity to come to these pithy judgements that Catholicism is all about sin then you are admitting to your own fixation on sin.

I certainly don’t admit to nor agree at all with your home-brew psychology. The Catholic “focus on being in a state of grace” is based on keeping one’s soul from being stained by “mortal sin” which will cause his eternal damnation. Notice the focus there being sin.

If you are the representative Protestant judge of Catholicism then you also expose Protestantism as “all about” self-righteousness and judging the one true apostolic faith that has existed continuously for 2,000 years and exposing an arrogant proclivity for protesting against the practices handed down through the apostolic succession; and as well showing that you don’t trust that God knew what He was doing when He established His One Catholic Church on earth.

Lot’s of assertions here, James.

I think that you don’t want to consider sin relevant since that would mean you would have obey and be accountable to somone other than yourself and because you know that would have to account for the irrational Protestant Theology of Total Depravity.

I’m accountable to my family, the fellow members of my church, close friends, and above all, God Himself. I am well aware of the fact that I must stand before the judgment seat of Christ (2 Cor. 5:10), but not to judge me worthy of salvation or the sins I’ve committed or commit or will commit (my salvation was gifted to me by grace through faith in Christ alone, and my sins have all been forgiven), but rather the works I’ve done in this life (1 Cor. 3:10-15). Their worth will be revealed when tested as by fire (figuratively speaking for divine appraisal). This judgment has nothing to do with sin or salvation. My sins were judicially dealt with, once for all, through the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross. And my salvation was divinely gifted to me at the time of my personal faith in the Person and sacrificial work of Jesus Christ on my behalf.

Just how does a self-righteous but totally depraved and self-appointed Judge pass fair judgement on the Catholic Church?

I’m not self-righteous nor totally depraved. I’ve been made spiritually alive in Christ (Eph. 2:5-10) and according to the Scripture called a pneumatikos (1 Cor. 2:15, “spiritual man” vs. a “psuchikos,” a natural man); one who knows the wisdom of God, having been “born again,” regenerated in Christ; a wisdom which the unbelieving rulers of this age don’t understand (religions or secular, 1 Cor. 2:8), *things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, and have not entered into the heart of man, ALL that God has prepared for those who love Him *(1 Cor. 2:8-9); because to me (and all who are born again by the Spirit) God has revealed them through the Spirit who searches all things, even the depths of God (1 Cor. 2:10); for the purpose that I (a true believer in Christ) might know the things freely given (Gr., charizomai; to grant as a favor, that is, gratuitously, in kindness, freely give) to me by God (in/through Christ, 1 Cor. 2:12). Therefore, I, a pneumatikos, appraise all things, but am appraised by no man (1 Cor. 2:15). Hence, I have the right to appraise even the doctrines taught by the Catholic church as well as those taught by one I attend. I am not a “sheep for slaughter.”

My righteousness is not my own but was reckoned (not infused into my soul) to me by God at the time of my personal faith in Christ, and imputed being now “in Christ”:Rom 3:22 “…even {the} righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe;”

Phil 3: "…not having a righteousness of my own derived from law (commandment keeping), but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which {comes} from God on the basis of faith,"So you see James, according to divine revelation (the theopneustos Scriptures) I am neither totally depraved nor self-righteous. I am what I am strictly by the grace of God through faith in Christ alone.

 

[WASP]

Sorry Bro - I’d NEVER consider Protestantism legitimate. There is no precedence in “the bible” for a revolt in God’s Church. The closest we have is Kora’s rebellion and God incinerated his men into ash and swallowed their familes and possessions into hell. Not a good example to be following.

No, Protestantism is anathema to me and is so far removed from apostolic teaching and shot full of strange secular-humanistic doctrines and speculative-theology that if Catholicism did not require me to accept Protestants as “seperated” brethren I would not not be inclined to call most of you all “Christian”. Each new generation of Protestantism falls farther and farther from the true apostolic teaching. It’s so bad now that many Protestants no longer even believe in the necessity of a water baptism with a trinitarian formula – these I simply CAN NOT accept as Christians at all and see as something more like secular-newage Deists who (mostly) hold to some good Christian morals (except too many Protestants find it perfectly OK to divorce, abort children, permit homosexual marriages, fornicate and have sex out of marriage etc.).

Catholics have been teaching an ongoing sanctification and the reality that some souls could “fall away” 1400 years before the reformer’s pagan forefathers even has a twinkle in their eye to sire their rebellious children. At no time in the history of the Church was there ever taught any notion of “salvation” as a sure thing. There is no merit to even thinking in terms of “saved” since it’s a presumptuous sort of thinking that invites all kinds of problems – not the least is the grave sin of presuming upon God’s mercy. Salvation was always a thing that could be rejected or forfeited in later life - as we see with Judas and through the struggles of the apostles in learning to walk with The Lord and being perfected in Christ (John, James, Peter, Thomas etc.). And then there are the false Christians (e.g. Simon Magus) – and those who walk away never to return (e.g. see John 6:66 of those lip-service only Christians who refused to believe in real-presence and the necessity to eat the body & blood of The Lord).

You can back-read anything you care to into Paul’s words - and most all Protestants who hold to a sola-fide teaching do. The truth is Paul was Catholic and he would be appalled to hear what some self-styled neo-Christians are trying to put into his mouth through private interpretation of his works. I think Paul would be most offended by the implicit message of the Protestant sola-fide concept of a “lone Ranger” Christianity seperate from The Church. Paul saw the Church as the COVENANTAL vehicle by which we are saved. He never had any notion of a personal Lord and Saviour seperate from The Church since He say Christ as forming a new covenant people - where “God’s people are saved” over individuals outside of the church being saved.

I am sorry but your teaching is wrong. Paul never meant to convey the wrong headed notion that people MUST continue in the faith and prevail because they can not possibly do anything less. Freewill can elect at any time to walk away from God and we are not mindless robots to grace. OSAS is just a way for people to reject taking responsibility for their own actions and say “the devil made me do it” and then keep right on doing something sinful or not worrying about it. It is what leads to people saying such silly things as “the devil made me do it”.

James

Anathema is such a dirty word, and I’ve never felt so dirty as when I read the Council of Trent. :tsktsk: Of course, Historical Protestantism holds that those who espouse Roman Catholic teaching are anathema according to Galatians 1:8-9 because they apparently teach a different Gospel than Paul taught.

Also, I just noticed, as I read Galatians 1 again, that even the Apostle Paul taught that he himself could preach a different Gospel. It may be the wrong forum to ask this, but does this speak to the infalliblity of the Church? If Paul admits that he could preach error, and if popes and bishops are in succession from the Apostles, than that would mean that those who succeed the Apostles can be wrong. Therefore, the Church is not infallible.

 

[moondweller]

guanophore:

moondweller:

Freed from the bondage of sin" is not my theological terminology, it’s yours.

You don’t find it biblical?

Gal 4:8-9

8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were in bondage to beings that by nature are no gods; 9 but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits, whose slaves you want to be once more?

In context this is speaking to the whole Gentile community. Prior to the gospel of Jesus Christ going out to the Gentiles to be believed (especially through the missionary efforts of Paul and his companions), Polytheistic Gentiledom in spiritual darkness was kept in bondage, i.e., servitude, to its many gods. But, like the Galatians, Gentiles, corporately, as a community, have come to know (the true) God through the preaching of the gospel. Those who have believed the gospel message and entered salvation have come “to be known by God” (2 Tim. 2:19). The influence of Christianity on Gentiledom has caused many Gentiles throughout the world to escape pagan polytheism and the many superstitions that accompany that darkness. So Paul is asking the Galatians (especially those who have believed and entered salvation) why they want to go back to things such as observing days, months, seasons and years, with the false notion that such things have spiritual power. Even the Jewish Law merely exposed and defined sins, but it anticipated One to come through whom all men would be justified by/through faith alone. Paul explains:Gal 3:23-26 “But before faith came, we (Jews) were kept in custody under law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor {to lead us} to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.”

Indicating that it is still possible for believers to live in sin. In fact, some do. And the nature of sin has not changed. Sin still separates us from God.

This is true. And this truth is connected to Adam in whom all born into this world are connected. Paul taught the church at Rome that through ONE MAN sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to ALL man because all sinned (i.e., in/with Adam, Rom. 5:12).

But that’s not the end of it. Paul also writes to your church:Rom 3:21-24 "But now apart from law {the} righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even {the} righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all sinned (past tense: in Adam) and fall short (present tense: continually) of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;Paul is essentially saying that Adam sinned in the Garden and continued to sin outside the garden; as do his descendants. IOW, we all continue to sin. But the believer has been justified (reckoned righteousness) by God through faith in the Person and redemptive work of the “Last Adam” Jesus Christ. The true believer is, in fact, “made righteous” being now “in Christ” (Rom. 5:19).

So yes, although the nature of sin has not changed, the position of every true believer in Christ in regards to sin and death has. He has died TO sin, with Christ, once for all, and now raised to new life (eternal) in Him (Rom. 2:2-3; Eph. 2:4-10; Col. 3:1-4). This divinely revealed truth is addressed to faith not experience. Jesus taught the same:John 3:14-17 "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him."And again:John 5:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life."And John follows through with:1 John 5:11-13 "And the testimony is this, that God has given us (believers) eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life."Catholicism, however, in disbelief, teaches against such confirmed knowledge and divine validation. It considers such confidence in Christ to be nothing short of brashness and gall.

Certainly your perception of “saved” is unknown, as your concept is not part of the once for all divine deposit of faith given to us by the Apostles.

I agree that it’s certainly not known to Catholics and your perceived “deposit” of faith. But it’s very well known, received and rejoiced in by those who have believed the gospel message of Jesus Christ as revealed and preserved in the theopneustos Scriptures.

And even a cursory glance at the Catholic Catechism will make it clear that the concept of “saved” is definitely part of Catholic Theology.

Yes, the word is used. But defined as a once for all, completed act of God toward the believer in Christ, it is not.

Titus 3:5-8 5 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, 6 which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.

These passages speak of “saved” as an act of God and correspond with the rest of Pauline soteriology as being a gift of God, not as a result of works, by grace through faith in Christ alone. And in Paul’s theology, as well as John’s and Christ’s, the “hope” of eternal life is a present possession, not a “hope so” uncertainty. Like salvation eternal life is also gifted upon personal faith in Jesus Christ - according to God’s preserved Word (Jn. 3:14-18; 5:24; Rom. 6:23; 1 Jn. 5:10-13).

 

[moondweller]

brb2:

moondweller:

Upon belief in the Person and work of Jesus Christ the Holy Spirit baptizes the believer into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13), which is the church (Col. 1:18,24), and we serve the head of the body, which is Christ, the Savior of the body (Eph. 5:23).

OK … I don’t think anyone will disagree with this statement.

Sure you would. You teach that this occurs through the act of baptism, not at the time of personal belief in Christ. And what do you define as the church? And who do you consider the head of your church on earth?

So … our mission is to locate that unified Church. Do you have any candidates for us to consider?

From where do you get that “mission?” Does it not say that the Spirit Himself (not water) baptizes the believer into the body of Christ, which is the church? If the born again believer needs to locate anything it’s his brethren, those of kindred spirit, who also rejoice and are thankful for their salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone. That’s true unity. The door to salvation is through Christ alone. Jesus said:John 10:9-15 "I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have {it} abundantly.

"I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters {them.} {He flees} because he is a hired hand and is not concerned about the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep."The unity of the saved is that they all entered salvation through ONE door and they all have only ONE Shepherd, and He knows each of them by name.

 

[moondweller]

guanophore:

moondweller:

That’s the equivalent to saying you’re born, you’re being born, and you will be born all at the same time. No, my friend, the reality is, if you’re born you’re born. It’s not a present process nor a future event. Nor do you give birth to yourself.

It seems that way to you because you are suffering a deficient understanding of salvation. Salvation begins when we are born again in baptism. The reason Catholics do not support “again” baptism is because we recognize that one is only born once, both physically, and spiritually. However, once a person has entered the River of Life, one is free to get out of it and walk away.

The problem here is no personal faith in Christ is actually required, especially with infants. Men baptize and God must robotically obey and “save?” Sine men “save” themselves (and others) through the act of baptism, it no wonder you’d naturally assume men can “unsave” themselves through the act of sinning. And according to your theology there’ll be many “born again” people in Hell. Such soteriology has no substance, no divine purpose. There’s no REAL salvation here, only a potential (maybe) if you DO all the right things and DO them correctly.

 

[moondweller]

VI. I Have Been Saved (past event)
Rom. 8:24 - for in this hope we were saved (but, again, why “hope” if salvation is a certainty?)

It’s not a “hope so.” It’s not a hope expressed in the fear of uncertainty, but that of eager expectation; and in the context of Rom. 8:24 it’s the expectation of the redemption of our bodies - our glorification. When He “will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory” (Phil. 3:21).

VII. I Am Being Saved (present event)

1 Cor. 1:18 - for the word of the cross is folly to those perishing, but for to us who are being saved, it is the power of God. Salvation is not a one-time event. It is a process of perseverance through faith, hope and love.

The word “for” introduces why Paul didn’t come to the Corintians in “cleverness of speech” (v. 17). To the perishing the cross must always appear to be foolish. Paul regarded the cross (not baptism) as God saving instrumentality. Perish and saved are in their present tenses but in a frequentative sense, not a durative sense as you express it. IOW, he vividly portrays the constant stream of the lost toppling into eternity without Christ, and the far fewer, but still constant, stream of the saved entering the door of eternal fellowship with Christ. He’s not at all expressing a “process” of salvation here, as Catholics erroneously interpret it.

2 Cor. 2:15 - for we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved. Salvation is a continual process.

Same frequentative sense as in 1 Cor. 1:18. Expressing the many who are being saved through the preaching of the cross and believing the message. Not a process.

Phil. 2:12 - we are working out our salvation through fear and trembling. Salvation is an ongoing process.

“Fear and trembling” is an idiomatic expression for a humble frame of mind (cf. 1 Cor. 2:3; 2 Cor. 7:15; Eph. 6:5), and Paul refers to Christ as the primary example in verses 2-8. Phil. 2:12 is expressed to the Philippian church as a community rather than to the individual. They were to express their salvation through humility toward each other. He’s not saying they were to work FOR their salvation. If anyone taught against salvation by/through works it was Paul.

1 Peter 1:9 - you obtain the salvation of your souls as the outcome of your faith

The “outcome” is not future but immediate. He’d just got through telling them that their inheritance though re-birth is “imperishable," “undefiled,” "will not fade away” and “reserved in heaven for them.” The inheritance of the true believer is not like that of the prodigal son. It’s reserved in heaven, hence, not in our power to squander.

VIII. I Will Be Saved (future event)
Matt. 10:22, 24:13; Mark 13:13 -

The context is the end of the age. “Saved” here is saved from physical death, not saved from sins. If that was the case, then all who die before the end of the age perish in Hell. CONTEXT!!!

Mark 16:16 – Jesus says whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.

He’s making a statement. Those who believe will be saved. No different than saying those who sit down at the dinner table will eat dinner.

Acts 15:11 - we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus.

It’s present tense. NASB is correct in translating it “we believe we ARE saved through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ…”

Rom. 5:9-10 - since we are justified by His blood, we shall be saved.

CONTEXT! That’s will be saved from the wrath of God - which is future. Not saved from our sins - which is present, by grace through faith in Christ alone.

Rom. 13:11 - salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. How can we be only nearer to something we already have?

This refers to ALL that Christ will do for the believer at His coming for us, for instance: Bodily resurrection for the “dead in Christ,” translation from life to LIFE for those who are alive (1 Thess. 4:15-18).

1 Cor. 3:15 - he will be saved, but only as through fire.

This refers to the man who has no valuable works to receive reward. It doesn’t effect his salvation because salvation is not based on works but divine grace through FAITH. This passage actually speaks to assurance of the believer’s salvation.

1 Cor. 5:5 - Paul commands the Church to deliver a man to satan, that he will be saved in the day of the Lord.

This is for disciplinary purposes (even death), not for the purpose of salvation. He expects to see this one among the Lord’s people.

2 Tim. 2:11-12 - if we endure, we shall also reign with Him. This requires endurance until the end of our lives.

It’s actually a manifestation of true faith, true salvation; not a stipulation.

Heb. 9:28 - Jesus will appear a second time to save those who are eagerly waiting for Him.

CONTEXT!! Christ will come again not to bear sin as He did the first time, but to meet the saints whose sins have been washed away by His sacrificial blood. They’re the redeemed (purchased by His blood) who eagerly wait for Him. They then enter into the consummation of their salvation: glorification with Christ.

James 5:15 - the sacrament of the sick will save the sick man and the Lord will raise him up.

This isn’t saving from sins but sickness. In context it has to do with restoring health.

More here: scripturecatholic.com/sal…ml#salvation-I

Yes, I see you’re a C.P.A. (copy and paste apologist). Others do your thinking for you.

 

[brb2]

The problem here is no personal faith in Christ is actually required, especially with infants. Men baptize and God must robotically obey and “save?” .

You forget about the TEAM Covenantal Church concept of Christianity. God expects the parents to circumcise their newborns thru Baptism in Water. Then, at a older age, they are Confirmed in the H.S.

Catholics do not ‘box’ God in by exercising authority over him. We petition Christ, in all things. We can do nothing apart from Christ. The priest is the petitioner for the flock, but it is Christ who baptizes.

You have misinterpreted the scriptures on infant baptism. If it was a practice of the Apostolic Church [and it was], then your church errs in not believing/accepting the Apostolic traditions, later described in sacred scriptures and writings of ECF’s.