I was converted from Catholicism to Christ at the age of 19.

[guanophore]

 My question is how much obedience is required by an indivudual to maintain his adopted child status before our Holy and righteous God?

100%. . “Be perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect”.

Does God grade us on a curve?

No, no curves

It almost seems that Catholics believe our adoption into the family of God is conditional and based on our personal obdience to our Heavenly Father?  Does your eathly father threaten to cut you off from your earthly family when you disobey him?

Actually, some do! It is not the adoption, so much as it is acting in character with the adoption. I had a pair of adoptive parents come to the center where I work, drop off the 17 year old, and say" we got him from the State, we are giving him back". He did not comply with their house rules, and they could not manage him.

Granted, God is not so with us, but even when we are adopted, we still have the privilege to run away, and to squander our inheritance. Rebellious children are no less children, just children without an inheritance.

 

[guanophore]

Paul clearly taught that true saving faith works. But the works we do in Christ is not the basis of our justification before God. It is only evidence that we have been justified and born from above at conversion. A Christian already has the perfect righteousness of Christ

It is very Catholic of you to say that!

Therefore, how can we possibily add to that perfection found in Christ alone as a basis of our justification before God?

It certainly is a mystery how it is that our good works add to our own grace, as well as that of others. Yet, this is the Apostolic teaching.

 

[benedictus2]

B2, clearly your church changed the Gospel of Jesus Christ when it added, as a requirement for salvation, the belief in certain of the Marian doctrines.

Second reply to to this post of yours:

My Church which happens to be the Church that Christ founded on Peter did not change the Gospel of Christ. The Gospel of Christ (Mark, Matthew, Luke and John) is the same as it has been ever since the Catholic Church, yes, the Catholic Church came up with the Canon of the Bible.If you can produce a Catholc Version of the Bible where you can find this allegation, kindly supply name, edition and verses.

The only person I know of who has tamper with the Bible is a certain man called Luther.

As to certain Marian Doctrines, kindly explain how we have changed “the Gospel of Christ”.
To say that Mary is a pre-requisite for salvation is to say that the Catholic Church teaches that unless you believe in Mary you will not be saved. So, show Marian Doctrine is supposed to be a requirement for salvation.

What we do believe though, is that Mary was necessary for the God’s plan for salvation otherwise God the Father would not have chosen her to be mother for His Son.

If you have such an issue about Mary, then take it up with God. He could have just materialized on earth without an earthly mother but He (in is His Will and His Wisdom) chose her to bear Him in her womb.

A propos to my answer to your above post yesterday, since you cannot say that your church is Christ’s Church then think about this tonight: Whose Church is it?

 

[benedictus2]

1 Corinthians 1:18
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are PERISIHING, but to us who are BEING SAVED it is the power of God.

I am not sure if this is just semantics but the above wording PERISHING and BEING SAVED seems to me an active on going process. Not SAVED but BEING SAVED.

So if salvation is once and for all finished, what’s all this business of BEING saved.

Especially for someone like Paul, who you would imagine after that Damascus experience would most certainly have accepted Jesus as his Lord and
Saviour.

 

[benedictus2]

For heaven’s sake Edwin, I was involved in a discussion on this forum over the summer in which the half-dozen Catholics participating insisted, and attempted to prove that grace is a “substance” that’s infused.

In that same discussion, only one jumped in and described grace as a “quality,” and a state of being.

I posted a link to on an article Justified by His Grace several posts ago. If you read that, then you will understand what we mean by infused.

In the protestant understanding, when a person is justified, the grace is like a blanket that covers a deformed being.

Imagine a deformed man, putrid and covered in sores.
The protestant understanding is that the justification by grace is like being covered by a clean, sweet smelling blanket. Underneath, you are still the same abominable creature but now all that has been covered and you are once more okay in the sight of God.

The Catholic says that the grace is infused into this man’s being so that it courses through his very being effecting the healing of his sores and deformity, and thus becomes a man renewed and made beautiful once more.

 

[guanophore]

Paul clearly taught that true saving faith works. But the works we do in Christ is not the basis of our justification before God. It is only evidence that we have been justified and born from above at conversion. A Christian already has the perfect righteousness of Christ . Therefore, how can we possibily add to that perfection found in Christ alone as a basis of our justification before God?

I can’t claim to explain this great mystery, however, God has enabled us to add our sufferings to His, for the benefit of the Church:

‘I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.’ Col 1:24

We will all agree that nothing is lacking in the perfect sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Yet, there are many aspects of this present life that He did not experience. He did not suffer the pain of losing his own son, or daughter. He did not experience, as a human,many of the sufferings that we have. He has ordained that we can add our sufferings to His, and that, if we do this, we will benefit the Body.

 

[Contarini]

I did not say that God can save people without grace. . . . .
Correct.

This last “correct” was in response to my claim that for God to give people eternal life is for God to act graciously.

You said this:

Infants receive the same grace as any other unbeliever—none, (other than common grace) until they are able to believe the gospel. If they die in infancy, they’re immediately with the Lord.

Now bracketing out the concept of “common grace” (which as I understand Reformed theology does not bring people to salvation and so is not relevant here), what you are saying is this:

A. People who die in infancy are united to the Lord without having received grace.

Now I have affirmed that

B. To be united to the Lord is salvation, and

C. For God to save us is to act graciously.

You have just expressed agreement with C, as I noted above. And I would have thought that we would both agree that

D. Grace is God’s gracious action toward human beings.

So the only way it seems to me that you can affirm A is to deny B. In other words, you think that one can be united to the Lord on the basis of being “innocent,” and that this should not be spoken of as “salvation” and hence does not involve grace.

Am I listening carefully enough, or am I still missing something?

If you really believe this, you should explain what “salvation” is. If it isn’t being united to God, what is it?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I did not say that God can save people without grace. . . . .
Correct.

This last “correct” was in response to my claim that for God to give people eternal life is for God to act graciously.

You said this:

Infants receive the same grace as any other unbeliever—none, (other than common grace) until they are able to believe the gospel. If they die in infancy, they’re immediately with the Lord.

Now bracketing out the concept of “common grace” (which as I understand Reformed theology does not bring people to salvation and so is not relevant here), what you are saying is this:

A. People who die in infancy are united to the Lord without having received grace.

Now I have affirmed that

B. To be united to the Lord is salvation, and

C. For God to save us is to act graciously.

You have just expressed agreement with C, as I noted above. And I would have thought that we would both agree that

D. Grace is God’s gracious action toward human beings.

So the only way it seems to me that you can affirm A is to deny B. In other words, you think that one can be united to the Lord on the basis of being “innocent,” and that this should not be spoken of as “salvation” and hence does not involve grace.

What puzzles me is that you speak in rather Reformed terms about election and perseverance, but you seem to deny the doctrine of Original Sin. I’m not going to accuse you of inconsistency, but your position is certainly odd. If infants are innocent, then why are not some adults innocent as well? If infants do not need to be “saved,” it seems odd that all of them, without exception, grow up into a condition from which they do need to be saved. But if, on the other hand, you think that infants have original sin (or, if you don’t like that phrase, some kind of propensity to sin which will inevitably cause them to sin if they grow up) but that God does not condemn them for it, it would follow that this non-condemnation is a gracious act of salvation, and your original statement remains false.

Edwin

 

[Mickey]

Good points Edwin. You are listening.

 

[rbarcia]

I am not sure if this is just semantics but the above wording PERISHING and BEING SAVED seems to me an active on going process. Not SAVED but BEING SAVED.

So if salvation is once and for all finished, what’s all this business of BEING saved.

Especially for someone like Paul, who you would imagine after that Damascus experience would most certainly have accepted Jesus as his Lord and
Saviour.

Salvation is ongoing.

You were saved from the penalty of sin [past] - Justification
you are being saved from the power of sin [present] - Sanctification
You will be saved from the presence of sin [Future] - Glorification.

**

Romans 8

28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

**

 

[cazayoux]

Paul clearly taught that true saving faith works. But the works we do in Christ is not the basis of our justification before God.

Nobody disagrees with you here on this point.
Initial justification is a gift.
What we DO with that gift is what is also very important.

It is only evidence that we have been justified and born from above at conversion.

The works that we do are not just a proof of our justification.
What of somebody that does works for a while, giving that proof you mention, then later does not do these works?
It doesn’t take away that initial justification, but it does mean the person is no longer cooperating with it and can lose their salvation.

A Christian already has the perfect righteousness of Christ .

Yes, Christ is perfect.
No, THE CHRISTIAN is not.
Because Christ is perfect, and gave the perfect sacrifice, does not mean that you are now perfect.
If it were so, then Jesus wouldn’t have mentioned the things we are to DO or even the fact that we need to have sins forgiven (by God through the apostles).

Therefore, how can we possibly add to that perfection found in Christ alone as a basis of our justification before God?

None of us think we are adding to Christ’s perfections with our works. It’s dishonest to keeps saying that we do.
We do see the need to do ALL ***Christ ***told us to DO.

michel

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Salvation is ongoing.

You were saved from the penalty of sin [past] - Justification
you are being saved from the power of sin [present] - Sanctification
You will be saved from the presence of sin [Future] - Glorification.

**

Romans 8

28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.**

I think it is correct to see salvation as a process that begins with one’s initial justification at baptism. But I think it is a bit artificial to say that justification is completed at that point. Justification is also an ongoing process. Or, perhaps it is more appropriate to say that the distinction made by protestants as between justification and sanctification is an artificial one. Paul is correctly stating the understanding that salvation is a process that happens in a moment, over time, and at the end of the “race.” In our attempt to understand this mystery, we are adding artificial divisions where I think it is better to view the whole process as relational. What do we do with our relationship with God, established by our baptism, and nurtured (or harmed) by our response to His statement of “I Love You?”

Just as you would not say “my love for my spouse was fixed at the moment I first saw him/her,” you should not say that your justification was similarly “fixed” at the hour you first believed.

Just my two cents, for what it’s worth.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[sandusky]

benedictus2:

I am not sure if this is just semantics but the above wording PERISHING and BEING SAVED seems to me an active on going process. Not SAVED but BEING SAVED.

So if salvation is once and for all finished, what’s all this business of BEING saved.

Especially for someone like Paul, who you would imagine after that Damascus experience would most certainly have accepted Jesus as his Lord and
Saviour.

Salvation was complete before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:3ff; cf Rom 8:29ff).

Nevertheless, time is not eternity, but a linear movement, always and ever forward, and it’s God’s will to work out in time what He’s decreed in eternity.

It’s the tensing of the verbs that HS uses in the passage that demonstrate that, and, it’s the precision of the Greek tensing that, IMO, was a reason the HS used the Greek to record the testimony, both in OT with Septuagint, and the NT—there are no accidents.

The verbs in that verse are present, participles, and they’re in the passive voice.

The Greek present tense always states an ongoing action, and that’s intensified by the participle—the perishing are always perishing unless, or until they believe. Once they believe, they are always being saved.

The passive indicates that both the perishing, and the saving, are actions done to the respective groups.

Some argue that with respect to the perishing, the voice is “middle,” IOW, it’s the perishing acting upon themselves to their own destruction.

It really doesn’t matter because the perishing are responsible for their own destruction, but by the same token, they are perishing because does not grace them to salvation (cf Jn 6:44 etc.).

 

[sandusky]

Arrogance, sheer arrogance

How do you know you’re about John 6?

 

[sandusky]

Contarini:

So the only way it seems to me that you can affirm A is to deny B. In other words, you think that one can be united to the Lord on the basis of being “innocent,” and that this should not be spoken of as “salvation” and hence does not involve grace.

It’s by grace, Edwin, as I stated when I was originally asked the question. (Your point “A” is not my position).

I believe that grace is not only necessary for salvation, but is, in and of itself, sufficient; on the basis of Christ’s sacrifice, God is free to grace with eternal life anyone He chooses to grace with eternal life in whatever way He chooses to do so.

I don’t understand why that’s a problem for you?

If it is a problem for you, why is it a problem for you?

 

[jmcrae]

How do you know you’re about John 6?

Because it fits together perfectly, when it’s understood as being about the Eucharist. Otherwise, it’s just a disconnected jumble of amazing stories with no apparent point.

 

[jmcrae]

It’s by grace, Edwin, as I stated when I was originally asked the question.

I believe that grace is not only necessary for salvation, but is, in and of itself, sufficient; on the basis of Christ’s sacrifice, God is free to grace with eternal life anyone He chooses to grace with eternal life in whatever way He chooses to do so.

I don’t understand why that’s a problem for you?

If it is a problem for you, why is it a problem for you?

See, this is the sort of thing where I start to get the feeling that you aren’t paying attention. What do you hope to accomplish by pretending not to understand the question?

 

[sandusky]

See, this is the sort of thing where I start to get the feeling that you aren’t paying attention. What do you hope to accomplish by pretending not to understand the question?

I understood the question; it’s Edwin who misunderstood what I said. His point “A” confirms his misunderstanding.

 

[jmcrae]

I understood the question; it’s Edwin who misunderstood what I said. His point “A” confirms his misunderstanding.

Did you misquote yourself? Because what he says you said is what I read in your message, too. I don’t think he misunderstood - I think you really did say that the innocent don’t need grace. (In fact I remember a long drawn out argument about that, that I had with you myself, either yesterday or the day before.)

 

[sandusky]

Did you misquote yourself? Because what he says you said is what I read in your message, too. I don’t think he misunderstood - I think you really did say that the innocent don’t need grace. (In fact I remember a long drawn out argument about that, that I had with you myself, either yesterday or the day before.)

Go back to post #485, and read my posts from that to the present.

I’m aware of my position on this, as I’ve held it for years, and I’m aware of what I said.

Infants who die in infancy, and human beings aborted, if saved, are saved by grace. (And I believe that’s what God does).

Hopefully that clarify things for you, Judith.