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

[CentralFLJames]

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.

Now you are into a paradox since everything equally makes perfect sense to every person (sane, insane, infant, adult etc.) within their own belief systems. But be careful since this is the same starting position of all those who preach a universal salvation where there is no objective truth and whatever one believes is “their truth” and “good enough” for them.

But this quickly gets you into a circularity or as we say “a chicken and egg” scenario. What comes first here? How does one gain faith from a state of total depravity and how can one with naturally defective and corrupt reasoning ever know that they are totally depraved to start with? How does conscience escape it’s own condition of corruption to discern that it’s corrupt? Is an insane person able to reflect on his own condition of insanity to imagine a system of belief that will lead to his own cure – then act on this curative belief system? It doesn’t make any sense to me…

Does faith come through mere philosophies and intellectual assent to those philosophies? Would not such a system doom to hell all those who died before they were able to form their own consent of conscience (e.g. infants, children under the age of reason, mentally handicapped and Alzheimer’s sufferers)? Would a “just God” not have a means to save these other “[more] totally depraved” individuals who lacked the facilities to “just believe”?

If you say “no” then aren’t these mentally incapacitated individuals really the most blessed of all? Are not these “the elect” who seem to get a free ticket to heaven just because they are born more “totally depraved” than the rest of us and their personal deficiency that precludes them forming their own consciences and give free assent becomes a virtue that insures that “grace abounds all the more” such that they become absolutely assured of salvation??? If this were true then instead of Catholics giving baptisms or Protestants “thinking their way to heaven” by endlessly contemplating and regressing on assurances of salvation (to brain wash yourselves into “just believing”) why don’t we all just go get assured salvation by getting a frontal lobotomy? This sort of neo-Christian soteriology could lead us to a new circumcision. At the age of reason we all make a trip to the “assured salvation doctors” and go under the scalpel to remove reason and extricate freewill to preempt the occasion of sin. We just keep cutting away any chance that we might not believe “enough” or have a means to form a conscious decision? Now we would have yet another new Protestant sola we can add to our bag of theological tricks and be assured of salvation. We could call it: sola scalpellum I think the French Intellectual during the French Revolution tried this approach with the guillotine.

I really think that you Protestants have all anachronistically misapplied the word faith and often use it as a label that pragmatically expresses: self-resignation to one’s fate (of the “elect” or of those created to be damned) and abdication of freewill and personal responsibility and accountability. But this is very reckless and dangerous thinking since it can lead to zealous and self-abusive behaviors. Over the last few decades Catholics have scratched their heads watching Christian fundamentalists of the likes of David Koresh, Jim Jones & Jim Bakker’s ilk crash and burn. These well meaning men all took their own peculiar denominational flight path’s over the cuckoo’s nest to try to arrive at an assured salvation by committing to variations of neo-soteriological thought. But intuition just tells me that a reformed theology that substitutes the rubrics of the Catholic mass and the orthodoxy of Catholicism with modernistic neo-Christian heterodoxy and the implements of a zealous & unquestioning devotional kind of faith (e.g. using the secular implements of large-caliber lead, laced purple Kool-Aid & polyester straight-jacket theology) and the necessity of dieing with a few key Protestant salvation slogans deposited in one’s totally depraved cranium has a very low credibility of having the power to overcome hell’s gravity and ascend the soul to heaven.

The ancient Vikings were one of the first to subscribe to the salvation-theology of "dieing with a sword in one’s hand’ but there is no evidence to anyone this side of Valhalla that any of these “made it” and Thor seems to have gone the way of the dodo bird. It seems to me that Protestants have just replaced the sword with the bible or the one-liner salvation-slogans such as “just believe”. But here again there is not a shred of evidence this side of paradise that a single Protestant has ever “arrived” to The Promised Land whereas Catholics have thousands of saints and thousands of confirmed post-death miracles associated with her saints. In the end for Catholics only 1 thing matters: Are we in a “right” relationship with God. This is the same thing as saying one must leave this place of exile not in disgrace but must be a new elevated human creature transformed through the deifying substance called “sanctifying grace”. This is Divine Love that arises from being in a “right relationship”. We are literally only here to choose our eternal destinies to be still born into eternity and remain natural man or to be metaphorized through Christ into a new divine-human nature that can take residence in God’s House never to fall again.

There is a linkage to intellect and faith but they are not the same thing. Faith illumines the intellect but reason is not a substitute for faith - yet one can attain a fledgling faith through reason. But even an infant or child can have supernatural faith - since its gifted by God in various ways.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

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

But the apostles never taught this. Are you proposing a new Christianity where anything that one wants to believe becomes truth by some magical power of “positive thinking”?

If so - why don’t you just believe us all into world peace and then beam us all up to heaven today at 5pm bro?

James

 

[moondweller]

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.

Without reading the notion into some passage can you show me where it’s actually taught that water baptism is a form of circumcision? Where it’s actually taught by divine revelation that water baptism is the cause of spiritual regeneration, especially for those who are “baptized upon” (i.e., no personal faith involved)?

I thought Catholics were the great warriors of free will? Doesn’t your doctrine of infant baptism war against it?

Catholics do not ‘box’ God in by exercising authority over him. We petition Christ, in all things. We can do nothing apart from Christ.

How do you know you can’t?

The priest is the petitioner for the flock, but it is Christ who baptizes.

Can you show me where this doctrine of Christ baptizing by proxy is divinely revealed in Scripture? Other than the general priesthood of all believers can you show me where priest (Gr. hiereus) is listed as a church office (presbuteros is not hiereus, nor is episkopos)?

You have misinterpreted the scriptures on infant baptism.

How can I misinterpret the Scriptures on infant baptism when I’ve yet to find even one passage on infant baptism to interpret?

 

[moondweller]

But the apostles never taught this. Are you proposing a new Christianity where anything that one wants to believe becomes truth by some magical power of “positive thinking”?

Of course we could ask the same of you.

If so - why don’t you just believe us all into world peace and then beam us all up to heaven today at 5pm bro?

Why doesn’t PBXVI, bro?

 

[moondweller]

But the apostles never taught this.

Are you suggesting that the Apostles failed to teach what Christ Himself taught?John 3:14-16 “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.”

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."Paul taught that eternal life is a gift (Rom. 6:23) and John confirmed the teachings of Christ on the believer’s present possession of eternal life in 1 Jn. 5:9-13.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Of course we could ask the same of you.

Why doesn’t PBXVI, bro?

You could of course ask it has you have here. But I am not the one conjuring up an “anything I beleive must be true” neo-soteriology. I can point to the early church father’s (all catholics) writings to prove to you what the apostles actually taught and what was retained as true apostolic teaching from those writings. But no Protestant can point to a single protestant early church writing that proves that a single neo-Christian teaching of the Protestant reformers that was anathamatized at Trent was ever taught in the early church. In fact, the only paper trail we can get of anything that resembles the Protestant neo-soterology is through the heretical sects such as the Gnostic’s and those subscribing to the heresy of Antinomianism. And the reformers had the unprecedented gall to call it “Pauline teaching”. It’s clear to anyone who knows some of the ancient history that what Luther did was what a common plagiarist does. Luther caved into “the dark side” to plagiarize the ancient heresies and innovate his new popular “common-man’s secular Christianity-lite” religion and “his” other new theories so that “sinning boldly” could become a bold expression of faith Under Luther’s tutelage a man could have his cake and eat it too - sin and salvation - heaven on earth through the sensual pleasures.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

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.

This is just indicative of your own pessimism MD. Availing ourselves of Christ’s grace and believing in ALL His teachings that apostolic successors have an authority to forgive sins is an expression of faith. MD, you would be the sort who would go to a dinner party without bringing a gift to the host and then have the gall to criticize the host for giving his guests an Oshibori (the hot cleansing towel that is a Japanese custom). You would claim that the guests were trying to buy the host’s favor with their gift offerings rather than just being polite and desiring to honor the host. You would also claim that the host and the guests had a fixation on cleanliness and not care in the least that the main event was the banquet and the social sharing in that meal among all present. MD - I think you need to “get out and walk around a bit more”. It’s not so gloomy as you would make it all. See that it is you who has placed yourself into a self-righteous and judgemental box. You are apparently only interested in looking for negative things in severe disproportion to the reality of the matter to gain self-affirmation in your own faith. I think you are heavily biased and have lost the ability to be objective MD. There are 2,865 teachings in the Catholic Catechism and sin is only one of many topics. Catholic focus predominantly on the postive - and that is the positive of God’s grace and God’s mercy and saving power through His sacraments. Sin is the flip-side of that and the thing to be avoided. We focus on curing sinners of the whithering effects of sin and then getting a person on the path to salvation and rapid sanctification so that a soul may be “all that it can be”. We do not just see salvation as a binary condition - we want a soul not only to attain salvation but to attain its highest and best utility to God and to reap that soul’s greatest possible reward in heaven.

Lot’s of assertions here, James.

Lot’s of judgement in your views of Catholics and your own personal salvation theories MD.

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…

When you stand before God you will be held accountable to every single sin - both forgiven and unforgiven and presumed to be forgiven. If you have repented perfectly of all your grave post baptismal sins and formed perfect contrition then salvation is possible for you. But if you have not then you will flee before the radiance of God’s holiness and cast yourself into hell to escape your own shame and admit before God “I am damned by my own choice and by my own fault”. Your works are only of merit to you if they are supernatural God given works and that is only possible if you did those works in a sate of grace. If you are judged worthy of salvation by not only believing in Christ as Lord but obeying Christ as Lord and repenting from sin and loving God and neighbor then those supernatural works will add to your personal glory that will shared with all the saints in heaven. I hope that the latter is your decision and your outcome MD - I truly do.

But it is a fairy-tale to believe that there is a forensic declaration that all sin (past, present and in the future) is forgiven in the instant one professes “Jesus as Lord”. The message is clear - repent and sin no more. If we do sin we can be forgiven 70x7 if we also forgive others and show love and repent and be assured of forgivness if we confess our sins to The Apostolic Church and are apostolically forgiven.

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, … I am not a “sheep for slaughter.”

That’s a convenient little salvation soteriology you have mosaic-ed together from various non-related verses – but it was never taught this way MD. You might imagine you are above the law and sinning and exempt yourself - but this is spiritual suicide if you think you can sin gravely and not repent each and every time you do and also be forgiven. Forgiveness of sins is not automatic. One must still ask God for forgivness and not presume as you seem to do here.

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;”
​

OK - your righteousness might not be your own but your self-righteous judgement of Catholics is not God’s either MD. You are speaking from mere book-knowledge - but the problem is its not a supernatural knowledge - its human teaching that somone taught you or you concocted on your own in a vacuum without any regard to the apostolic teachings. Anyone can read anything they want into the bible. You have to admit this to account for how we have over 30000+ different protestant sects. Statistically that makes your opinions irrelevant since you just one voice in 850 million other Protestant voices that has their own beliefs. What you profess here was never actually taught by the apostles - if so - prove it from the patristics.

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.

You never have told us how you came to know what is theopneustos scripture from your first stage condition of total depravity nor explained why you are saved by it but Catholics are not? Compared to Catholicism you are the new kid on the block and are not teaching what has always been taught since the early church. If you are what you are strictly by the grace of God then what makes Satan what he is? Did God take back his grace? Just how do we know that “what you are” is a true believer and not somone who is totally confused by his own ideas?

James​

 

[moondweller]

You could of course ask it has you have here. But I am not the one conjuring up an “anything I beleive must be true” neo-soteriology. I can point to the early church father’s (all catholics) writings to prove to you what the apostles actually taught and what was retained as true apostolic teaching from those writings. But no Protestant can point to a single protestant early church writing that proves that a single neo-Christian teaching of the Protestant reformers that was anathamatized at Trent was ever taught in the early church. In fact, the only paper trail we can get of anything that resembles the Protestant neo-soterology is through the heretical sects such as the Gnostic’s and those subscribing to the heresy of Antinomianism. And the reformers had the unprecedented gall to call it “Pauline teaching”. It’s clear to anyone who knows some of the ancient history that what Luther did was what a common plagiarist does. Luther caved into “the dark side” to plagiarize the ancient heresies and innovate his new popular “common-man’s secular Christianity-lite” religion and “his” other new theories so that “sinning boldly” could become a bold expression of faith Under Luther’s tutelage a man could have his cake and eat it too - sin and salvation - heaven on earth through the sensual pleasures.

James

It’s easy to take a man’s writing out of context, James. You do it to the Scriptures all the time, so why not Luther, eh?

No man will ever get into heaven by not sinning. If that was the criterion then only one Man would ever enter: The Son of Man, the Man Christ Jesus. Men go to heaven because they believed the Word of God. This side of the cross it’s the Word of God concerning the Person and sacrificial work of Jesus Christ.

No man ever goes to Hell because of sins (the core of Catholic teaching). If that was the case ALL men would abide there forever, except the the Son of Man, the Man Christ Jesus. Men go to Hell because they refuse to believe God’s Word.John 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins."They die in their sins because they refuse to believe the Apostolic message (word) of the cross and the One whom God sent to be the propitiation for our sins.

Unbelief can be wrapped in many religious packages. Religion does not necessarily equate to faith.

 

[CentralFLJames]

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.

Of course, Historical Protestantism holds that those who espouse Roman Catholic teaching are anathema according to Galatians?

This is like saying that the heretics Marcion, Simon Magus, Arian or Judas or some gnostics cursed the apostles & their successors for holding to the same one apostolic teaching.

Paul anathamatized in Gal 1:9 those who dared to teach a different gospel than what was handed down. Catholic followed in his same recommendation that those who teach a different gospel that what was handed down should be deserving of a curse. It’s laughable to a Catholic to hear a Protestant say Catholics should be anathematized for teaching the same thing for over 2,000 years.

Speaking of Paul - he knew for sure that he could fall through pride and was fixated on that fear since he was very intellectually gifted and knew too well how easy the human intellect could rationalize away Christ and grasp again at equality of God as if a thing to be sought after. He was diligent in disciplining himself almost to the point of being paranoid about falling away before he completed the race. If Paul was so concerned about working out his salvation with fear and trembling and finishing the good race and running it to win we should also.

You ask about if Paul is referencing infallability of the church. The answer is not in the verses you reference. If you want to always take a literal read of scripture than I’d be more concerned with Paul’s preoccupation with calling his writings “MY GOSPEL” and not referencing almost anything that is directly quoted from Jesus (being that he knew the early Christians did not trust him as the persecuting Saul and all knew that he was NOT an eyewitness disciple of Christ’s.

Romans 2:16

16This will take place on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as **my gospel **declares.

Romans 16:25

Now to him who is able to establish you by **my gospel **and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past,

James

 

[brb2]

How do you know you can’t?

?

Because God can’t be ‘boxed in’ … no matter how hard anyone might attempt to re-define his teachings. This applies to both Protestants and Catholics.

Christ is already “in” his Church … at its foundation. And Catholics abide ‘in’ Christ. We are one with Christ. There is no separation or disunity.

One can recognize the Catholic Church as the one true Church … due to its Unity/Sainthood of believers, Longevity, Apostolic succession, authorship of the Sacred Scriptures & Apostolic teachings, Inerrant Teachings on Faith & Morals, acceptance of All Sacraments, celebration of Eucharist [from age-to-age, from the rising of the sun to its setting … a perfect sacrifice is every being made], the only Infallible Church among the 1000’s who have splintered off from Her.

Find us another ‘Shining City on a Hill’ candidate … otherwise, you have an Obligation to come to the table of unity & grace. Be a unifier, not a divider. What are you waiting for ? A bolt-of-lightning, Damascus Road experience like Paul’s ?

 

[brb2]

**

Paul anathamatized in Gal 1:9 those who dared to teach a different gospel than what was handed down. Catholic followed in his same recommendation that those who teach a different gospel that what was handed down should be deserving of a curse. It’s laughable to a Catholic to hear a Protestant say Catholics should be anathematized for teaching the same thing for over 2,000 years.

**

Good point, spot on.

A year ago I got so upset when my Protestant ideas on scripture were called heretical by Catholics at CAF. Especially by CFJ. I was determined to prove them/him wrong.

Couldn’t do it. Scriptures and Early Church History proved me wrong. Thanks to CFJ, G-4, Pax, etc … for sticking true to the sacred scriptures and pointing up my many errors.

Its better to be right, than stubborn.

 

[brb2]

It’s easy to take a man’s writing out of context, James. You do it to the Scriptures all the time, so why not Luther, eh?

No man will ever get into heaven by not sinning. If that was the criterion then only one Man would ever enter: The Son of Man, the Man Christ Jesus. Men go to heaven because they believed the Word of God. This side of the cross it’s the Word of God concerning the Person and sacrificial work of Jesus Christ.

No man ever goes to Hell because of sins (the core of Catholic teaching). If that was the case ALL men would abide there forever, except the the Son of Man, the Man Christ Jesus. Men go to Hell because they refuse to believe God’s Word.John 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins."They die in their sins because they refuse to believe the Apostolic message (word) of the cross and the One whom God sent to be the propitiation for our sins.

Unbelief can be wrapped in many religious packages. Religion does not necessarily equate to faith.

Md …

Get mad, get fighting mad. “Mad as hell, not gonna take it anymore mad”.

Don’t blame the messenger !!! Good apologetics is good, when it gets up your ire. And CFJ is top gun at finding the weak spot in a protestant argument.

What you need to do is just once prove him wrong. Right now you read your rejoinder, and think you have him on the ropes, backed into a corner, and unable to make a credible case against you.

Just wait my friend. We all know its coming …

 

[CentralFLJames]

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).

First of all let me thank you for actually trying to answer the mail for the first time here on the many scripture verses we have given you that support the Catholic apostolic teaching.

But now let me say that previously you mentioned that you were not a sheep to be slaughtered like we Catholics are. But I think Paul hoped in this. Was this a misdirected hope and why do you reject this hope when Paul embraced it?

Romans 8:24-25
For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? 25But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.

Romans 8:36
Just as it is written, “FOR YOUR SAKE WE ARE BEING PUT TO DEATH ALL DAY LONG; **WE WERE CONSIDERED AS SHEEP TO BE SLAUGHTERED.” **

Was Paul attempting to introduce a new sola here MD? Is it now sola spero (by hope alone vice sola fide)?

Now, while it is true that there is a relationship between hope and faith I don’t think you can offer anything other than opinion here as to why the divine author choose to use a semantic of hope rather than a semantic of concrete certainty of “eager expectation” of “foreseen hope”.

Also notice that Paul was not batting 100% on his non-dogmatic personal beliefs. The history and scholarship does bears out with high-confidence that Paul did in fact expect an “eager expectation” in at least some things. In particular Paul certainly personally believed in Christ’s eminent return in Paul’s own lifetime. But I suspect that the context of that hope waned rather quickly as he contemplated in prison his own pending execution. John the Baptist did the same thing asking Jesus through a message sent from prison: “Are You the Expected One, or do we look for someone else?” (Luke 7:20). Was this certainty of hope as you would claim or people just needing affirmation that what they were seeing was believable and not an illusion?

Given that Paul was decapitated (heart severed from intellect) before Christ’s 2nd coming would you say that Paul’s personal idea about hope were wrong? Or would you claim that Paul was misunderstood and was hoping in “the certainty” of Christ’s second early personal coming? After all Paul invited his own martyrdom by provoking the Jews and the Romans to move against him by spreading the Christian message against the civil law (Just as Christ did BTW)? No doubt Paul did encounter Christ’s second coming by dying in Christ as a martyr. But I can’t agree that this verse speaks of “certainty of salvation” and I think you should consider that Paul’s “zeal” is present here in the poetry of his writings - but these were emotional writings - NOT his prior Pharisaical sort of strict legal kinds of writings with no room for equivocation. Paul used the words that convey to us a modern notion of “hope” out of a motive of humility and not from an arrogant Pharisaical certainty of law to conform to the humility of The Lord.

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.

Well blow-me down MD - you use such flowery and clever poetic speech and mighty big words. Did you just come into your own with a sudden infusion of grace? We are just simple and humble Catholic folk here who might quote a saint or a fellow apologists now and then (but do try to always reference our sources) but your suddenly waxing eloquent as if importing foreign talent is rather impressive bro. Hmmm…

Be these your own words mate or are you here to republish another man’s works under your own alias?
MD "Foolishly" caught red-handed plagiarizing from his fellow Reformed brethren:

More here: The Reformed Messenger: Foolishness

To the perishing the cross must always appear to be foolishness. Paul regarded the cross as God’s paving instrumentality. The foolish perishing souls in this turbulent world presents a constant stream of the lost, toppling into eternity without Jesus Christ, and the much fewer, but still constant stream of the saved, entering the door of eternal fellowship with Jesus Christ.

:yawn:

Paul regarded Baptism as the new covenantal sign of our salvation and our rebirth in Christ.

[cont]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

"Paul on Baptism:

Rom. 6:4 - in baptism, we actually die with Christ so that we, like Him, might be raised to newness of life. This means that, by virtue of our baptism, our sufferings are not in vain. They are joined to Christ and become efficacious for our salvation.

1 Cor. 6:11 - Paul says they were washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, in reference to baptism. The “washing” of baptism gives birth to sanctification and justification, which proves baptism is not just symbolic.

Gal. 3:27 - whoever is baptized in Christ puts on Christ. Putting on Christ is not just symbolic. Christ actually dwells within our soul.

Col. 2:12 - in baptism, we literally die with Christ and are raised with Christ. It is a supernatural reality, not just a symbolic ritual. The Scriptures never refer to baptism as symbolic.

more here: Scripture Catholic: Baptism

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.

Sorry - this semantic-alchemy of yours (e.g. frequentative sense) can easily be scuttled with a simple analogy. If one tosses a large net over schooling fish in the water and hauls them onto the Barq of Peter so that these are all in a plural sense “being saved” permanently from drowning in the water from which they were previously spawned in and swam in rolleyes then you mean to say that its impossible for some to instinctively flop around on the deck out of fear, work their way to the edge and flop back into the water again before they die to their old self? Or do you mean that any who might escape are destined only to be recaptured again another time?

In MD’s soteriology does freewill, the vehicle by which we originally give our free assent to “be saved” suddenly become mute when one becomes “a believer”? Is this what your idea of salvation is all about - swapping out our eternal gift of freewill for eternal salvation in some kind of brokered exchange of gifts?? If so, then “sorry Charlie” - but this is nonsense.

Be careful you don’t read too much of your ideas into Paul’s teaching. Paul didn’t quote Jesus or know Him personally but saw large macro-level Jewish salvation concepts in Christ. If you want to bring some balance into your world view then you must reconcile Paul’s works with some of the other apostles.

Luke 8:13 - Jesus teaches that some people receive the word with joy, but they have no root, believe for a while, and then fall away in temptation. They had the faith but they lost it. This is simple proof that salvation can be lost or voluntarily forfeit.

“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.

I have no problem with your read on the necessity of a humble context of mind and I like your admission that Paul spoke in the context of “the community of believers” (the church) and how that was a necessary substrate to keep one rooted in the faith. But it takes a leap of faith to claim that Paul was against works. He saw these as a flowering fruit of faith that was proof one had a true and salvific faith since it nourished OTHERS to do God’s will through the instrument of the believer. Grace demands a yield and a dividend or that branch will be pruned and eventually a non-productive soul will be cut off and tossed aside to be burned.

*2 Cor. 5:10 - Paul says that at the judgment Seat of Christ, we are judged according to what we have done in the body, not how much faith we had.

2 Cor. 9:6 – Paul says that he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully, in connection with God’s judgment.

2 Cor. 11:15 - Paul says that our end will correspond to our deeds. Our works are necessary to both our justification and salvation. *

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.

If that were true we’d be crowned at the first moment we professed our belief and were baptized. Inheritance is imperishable but to get the inheritance one must actually stay in the household of the Lord and at the appointed time come forward to claim it. If we go the route of the Prodigal’s son and never repent and return we have forfeit out inheritance to our brethren who stayed loyal to The Father and will receive what was your portion had you persevered to the end. You are mistaken - there is no reservation for those who come to the wedding feast wearing rags. Don’t make the mistake of confusing predestination to grace as the same thing as predestination to Glory. You must go the distance all the way to the promised land and not look back from your deliverance.

[cont]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

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.

You forgot the other bit about baptism. CONTEXT MD CONTEXT!
But its very clear that salvation is expressed as a future (e.g. “will-be”) event here. The truth is no one is saved until one is judged worthy of salvation and is crowned in glory in heaven just as no one is done eating until he has eaten all that is served, done the pleasurable work of chewing one’s food. But that food goes right on nourishing us til the next day. So speaking of eating - unless one is eating the body of Christ and drinking His Blood one will always hunger and need to continue eating since they will have no life in them.

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

How do we know that NASB has it right?

How long do we have to keep this “believe” MD? It is sufficient to believe one day and forget about it after we are saved? Or must we forever keep this belief not only in the forefront of our minds and in our hearts but for all the future so that this belief becomes a manifest habit and reflex? Do you really think there is any real saving transformation in holding to a transient intellectual belief but then not acting on it and radically changing our lives and living in that belief daily??? Is belief a single event or is belief our daily work of God as the bible tells us it is? John 6:29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” When is that work complete MD? When can the bible-Christian rest on his laurels and know that he no longer needs to do the work of God? Here is the hint that it’s a daily labor and God is right there with us working too: 1 Thess 2;23 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, **which is at work **in you who believe.. This sure sounds like the Catholic idea of an ongoing life-long sanctification bro?

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.

Hum, does not the work of belief in the one God sent count for anything? Are there paupers and bums for Christ in heaven?

This is a clear case that salvation is not had until one is tried. Salvation is not complete until one attains to share in Christ’s glory.

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

So are you inferring that one can go right on sinning after one is saved? This was to protect the flock from the negative influence and scandal that this man brought to the other Christians and to deny him the fellowship and graces of The Church so that the withering effects of sin would humble him and compel him to repent and turn his whole heart to God. If he failed to repent and learn his lesson then he went to hell but Paul preserved the other members of the flock from his negative influence.

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

I get a kick out of all these “true” words you Protestants use (true faith, true believer, true salvation etc. etc.). Enduring to the end is the obvious and most direct meaning of the expression. That requires a daily consent to faith not a one time forensic declaration at the starters gun. Run the race to finish MD and don’t think you can run one lap at the altar call and call yourself saved.

[cont]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

===

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.

Ah no. Those who are here in the last days are in need of salvation too. These who persevere will be be delivered from Satan’s reign through anti-Christ. But at the 2nd comming Jesus comes not as Merciful Lord but as the dreadful Just Judge. This will be a terrible time for God’s enemies - those who are caught in a state of grave sin and apostasy and will not be given mercy. This is the same thing that happens when a person dies - at death a soul is all it can ever be and if it is not in a state of grace the time for mercy is OVER and that sould perishes in hell. Believe is necessary but it is not sufficient if not acted on. One must also repent of their sins and seek forgivness through proper means. THE ONLY sure way to be forgiven of sins is through apostolic confession - everyone else is at grave risk.

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

Wrong again MD - this does not even make logical sense. Just why would Jesus waste precious grace healing a sinner’s corrupt body but not his soul??!!! The elders are the priests and these have an apostolic authority to administer the healing of the sick or last rites. This is a means by which the infirm and those even unconscious and in a comma and unable to confess their sins to be forgiven of their sins through the amazing apostolic sacraments of the Church. Sickness of all kinds is a manifestation of the consequences of both forgiven and unforgiven sin of all of humanity. If you had any linkage to the ancient church you would know this to be true from 2,000 years of sacred tradition.

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

I find no shame in referencing the good works of other Catholic apologists who have a gift for concisely referencing scripture to elaborate the apostolic teachings we all hold in common MD. The objective here is not to win a contest but to teach the faith to others - if not you those others who are silently reading here. At least I quote my sources - you don’t. See the above.

James

 

[brb2]

===

. If you had any linkage to the ancient church you would know this to be true from 2,000 years of sacred tradition.

I find no shame in referencing the good works of other Catholic apologists who have a gift for concisely referencing scripture to elaborate the apostolic teachings we all hold in common MD. The objective here is not to win a contest but to teach the faith to others - if not you those others who are silently reading here. At least I quote my sources - you don’t. See the above.

Perhaps I missed it in past posts, but I’ve never been able to get Md to tell us what church he is a disciple of. Looks like CFJ has discovered the info.

The Brethren Reformed Church … started in 1709, by the German Schwarzenau Brethren.
Thats as far back as the roots go, but with a desire to imitate the Philadephia Church of John’s day.

MOONDWELLER … I found something very interesting in the Statement of Faith, ‘we believe’ Doctrines / Dogmas.

7 We believe that Christians MUST LIVE A LIFE OF righteousness, GOOD WORKS and separation unto God from the evil ways of the world.​

Dogma #7 calls you to live Good Works ? Do you NOT BELIEVE your church’s mandatory directive ?

 

[moondweller]

CentralFLJames:

When you stand before God you will be held accountable to every single sin - both forgiven and unforgiven and presumed to be forgiven.

Truthfully, I won’t be held accountable. You say this only because you don’t believe the Apostolic message concerning Christ:Acts 10:43 “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

Acts 13:38 “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,”

Col 1:14 “…in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”

If you have repented perfectly of all your grave post baptismal sins and formed perfect contrition then salvation is possible for you.

Men aren’t saved by “repenting of sins” and “performing perfect acts of contrition.” According to the Apostolic message men are “saved by grace through faith” (Eph. 2:8-9). Why? Because Christ really did accomplish and finish the work of redemption, reconciliation and propitiation on that cross. And His work is applied to the sinner, in full, at the time of faith in Him.

But if you have not then you will flee before the radiance of God’s holiness and cast yourself into hell to escape your own shame and admit before God “I am damned by my own choice and by my own fault”.

That may be for those who have not believed the word of the cross, it being foolishness to them. But it’s already been revealed in Scripture what will happen when I stand before Him in all His glory:Rev 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood {men} from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. "You have made them {to be} a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth."I love to sing songs that are theologically correct, and this one will be my favorite for all eternity. You see, James, Christ took my sins and my judgment 2000 years ago and died in my stead. In return I was gifted His righteousness.

Your works are only of merit to you if they are supernatural God given works and that is only possible if you did those works in a sate of grace. If you are judged worthy of salvation by not only believing in Christ as Lord but obeying Christ as Lord and repenting from sin and loving God and neighbor then those supernatural works will add to your personal glory that will shared with all the saints in heaven.

The judgment seat of Christ described in 1 Cor. 3:10-15 is for the “saved” only. There’s no judgment of salvation worthiness delineated there, James. The believer’s worthiness is in Christ and Christ alone.

But it is a fairy-tale to believe that there is a forensic declaration that all sin (past, present and in the future) is forgiven in the instant one professes “Jesus as Lord”.The message is clear - repent and sin no more. If we do sin we can be forgiven 70x7 if we also forgive others and show love and repent and be assured of forgivness if we confess our sins to The Apostolic Church and are apostolically forgiven.

I think the Apostolic message concerning belief, sin and forgiveness is VERY clear in the Acts passages cited above.

Nowhere is it taught that sins are divinely forgiven by confessing them. Sins have always been dealt with judicially through blood sacrifice. Those animal sacrifices prescribed in the Law prefigured the one, final, sin sacrifice of the Son of God, God’s ultimate unblemished Lamb, who would “take away the sin of the world” (Jn. 1:29)Heb 10:11-12 "Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered ONE sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God,…"Men are asked to believe what Christ has DONE, once for all. This is the content of salvation faith, my friend. It’s by this faith that God saves/justifies the believing sinner.

There’s only one place in Scripture that only seems to indicate forgiveness of sins via confession: 1 Jn. 1:9. But in context John is combating Gnostic teaching that was infiltrating the church during his day. The Gnostic denied even the existence of sin. The Greek word translated “confess” is omologômen which means “to acknowledge.” The “we” in vss. eight through ten is not addressing the believer but those leaning toward the Gnostic heresy:“If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us,”

"If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us."Obviously he’s not addressing the believer since the truth of the word is not in those who say such things. No one ever became a true believer in Christ by denying the reality of sin and his own sinful state. It was, in fact, the conviction and acknowledgment of one’s sinful state that caused him to turn from unbelief to belief in Christ and receive the forgiveness of sins, according to the Apostolic message cited above.

In an evangelistic appeal to the Gnostic John writes:1 John 1:9 "If we confess (acknowledge) our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness."Sins are divinely forgiven, once for all, and the sinner cleansed of all unrighteousness, when he turns from unbelief to belief in the Person and sacrificial work of Jesus Christ on his behalf.

Can you show me, James, where it’s recorded that men lined up before the Apostles to “confess” their sins in order to have them forgiven? It would certainly be a recorded common occurrence in the Scriptures if perpetual confession was the divine method for having sins forgiven. But, alas, the Scriptures support none of this.

According to divine revelation sins are forever forgiven through believing, not confessing.

 

[moondweller]

Perhaps I missed it in past posts, but I’ve never been able to get Md to tell us what church he is a disciple of. Looks like CFJ has discovered the info.

The Brethren Reformed Church … started in 1709, by the German Schwarzenau Brethren.
Thats as far back as the roots go, but with a desire to imitate the Philadephia Church of John’s day.

MOONDWELLER … I found something very interesting in the Statement of Faith, ‘we believe’ Doctrines / Dogmas.

7 We believe that Christians MUST LIVE A LIFE OF righteousness, GOOD WORKS and separation unto God from the evil ways of the world.​

Dogma #7 calls you to live Good Works ? Do you NOT BELIEVE your church’s mandatory directive ?

I certainly do believe in the call to holiness and a life dedicated to good works for the believer - to the glory of Christ. But one is not saved by those works. Nor does that statement of faith declare it. I believe the Apostolic message of salvation “by grace through faith” in Christ alone.

And, sorry, I am not associated with “The Brethren Reformed church.”

 

[guanophore]

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

OIC. Yes, this is a departure from what the Apostles believed and taught. They did teach, however, that God’s grace reaches out to us in our lost state, and without that grace, it is impossible for us to come to Him in faith, to be cleansed, and regenerated.

Calvin taught that regeneration happens in order for conversion to occur. This error emanates from the heresy of total depravity.