Nessisty for salvation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Montie_Claunch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Montie_Claunch

Guest
O.K. I know I said on my previous thread “Help!!!” that I would tone it done a notch and work on my basics (through R.C.I.A. and the CCC and ect.) and I am but this question has been churing in the back my mind for a while. What is the nessity for salvation? As differs from the protestant Sola Fides , I Know the church says something about the Salvation comeing from both Faith AND works, though it was never said what the relations were. But the major part of the question I need adressed is. What would one say one must beleive in dogmaticly (as apposed to most prostestants saying all one needs is “Jesus came to take away my sins and be ‘my personal lord and savior’”)?

Thanks and God bless,
Montie Claunch
 
Hi Montie,

I suppose you mean necessity for salvation? Or what is necessary for salvation?

Getting to heaven is a two step-affair.
  1. Justification. We are justified by faith and baptism. Baptism makes us adopted children of God and heirs to heaven.
  2. Salvation. Persevering in the state of justification until death. We are heirs to heaven, we are given the ticket to heaven, but we must make our way there… with God’s help.
Verbum
 
40.png
Verbum:
  1. Salvation. Persevering in the state of justification until death. We are heirs to heaven, we are given the ticket to heaven, but we must make our way there… with God’s help.
Verbum
Click to expand...
This is one that I’ve been struggling with as of late. Why would Christ say, on the cross none-the-less, “tetelestai” (in the Greek), which is commonly translated as, “It is finished”, but is actually better translated as, “Paid in full”, due to the custom of the time, if we still have to somehow “make our way there” or “finish the job” that Christ did on the cross? Can somebody help me with this? It almost seems to me to deny that Christ was able to handle it “all by Himself.”

I fully understand the concept of trying not to sin, trying to be more Christ-like, but my motivation has always been one of love for God, not fear or trying to “make my way there.” Perfect love casts out fear.

I understand Catholic and Protestant theology on the matter, and though my question may seem to be quite “Protestant”, it is not my intention to compare and contrast Protestant and Catholic views of salvation. I’m merely asking what makes Catholic teaching on the matter any different than trying to “earn our way there” in virtually the same manner as the OT sacrifices and atonements? Thanks again.

Mike
 
I think it is all a matter of semantics. Catholics and protestants believe the same thing, only it is worded differently. When protestants hear things like “Faith and Works” they envision a Catholic going out, doing good deeds saying, “I’m buying my way into heaven.” This is incorrect. Because of our Faith, we will perform works. Christ commands us to DO the will of the Father…to follow the law…etc. Those are actions.

The question I’ve often asked a protestant is this: "If you are “saved” and you commit adultery, are you still “saved”? Nine times out of ten, their answer is, “if they were really saved, they wouldn’t have committed adultery.” So, they are also saying that by your faith you show your works. Your faith in Christ’s teaching would lead you to not sin…your faith controls your works.
 
Mike,

Catholic teaching on salvation excludes the notion of “earning” your way into heaven. A summary of the Catholic position could be made as follows:

“Salvation is a gift of God. We are saved by grace alone, through the merits of Jesus Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection. We are thus saved through grace by faith and works but not by faith alone.”

Please note that “everything” is by grace. Our faith is by grace and our works are by grace. Saving faith is a living faith that includes hope and love. In Romans 8:24 Paul says "For we are saved by hope"KJV ]. Paul also says that we are saved by grace. He also says that we are saved by faith. Moreover, Paul calls faith and love works[see 1 Thess 1:3] Jesus also calls faith/believing a work [see John 6:29, and Rev 2:19].

I performed a little experiment which I have ocassionally shared with non-Catholics. I ran a set of arguments from scripture to show how we are saved. In each case the arguments are equally strong and yet they also share the very same weakness. In the first argument I prove from scripture that we are saved by faith. Please note that I did not say by “faith alone.” That argument cannot be made from scripture. In the second argument I prove from scripture that we are saved by love. Finally in the third argument I prove from scripture that we are saved by both obedience and love.

All of these arguments can be made from scripture but each argument “alone” is incomplete because each fails to include the other elements. The only argument that can be made that Catholics and Protestants actually agree on is that “we are saved by grace alone.” The other elements of faith, hope, love, and obedience are under the umbrella and impetus of grace.

The works that we do, which includes faith (because believing is something we do), are nothing less than the work of the Father’s hands in our hearts, minds, and souls. Grace is the gift that empowers us with supernatural gifts of faith, hope, and charity. All of the glory goes to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We do not earn our way into heaven.

I hope this helps.
 
Thanks for your answers. I, too, think it is a matter of semantics. Just double checking. 🙂 Thank you both for your help.

Mike
 
"When I was hungry, did you give me to eat…when I was thirsty, did you give me to drink…when I was imprisoned, did you visit me…You do these to the least of people, you have done them to me."It is faith, justified by works that saves us…we must live the beattitudes…God Bless
 
Montie Claunch:
O.K. I know I said on my previous thread “Help!!!” that I would tone it done a notch and work on my basics (through R.C.I.A. and the CCC and ect.) and I am but this question has been churing in the back my mind for a while. What is the nessity for salvation? As differs from the protestant Sola Fides , I Know the church says something about the Salvation comeing from both Faith AND works, though it was never said what the relations were. But the major part of the question I need adressed is. What would one say one must beleive in dogmaticly (as apposed to most prostestants saying all one needs is “Jesus came to take away my sins and be ‘my personal lord and savior’”)?

Thanks and God bless,
Montie Claunch
Click to expand...
Just to put dogmatics into perspective, we are commanded to love God with all our heart, mind, and strength. Reason plays a big part in working out the implications of faith. We do not divorce our brains from our hearts.
 
Hi MHansen,

Why would Christ say, on the cross none-the-less, “tetelestai” (in the Greek), which is commonly translated as, “It is finished”, but is actually better translated as, “Paid in full”, due to the custom of the time,

I have a dictionary that weighs 15 pounds and covers all of Grecity up to the year 500 AD. Here are the meanings given to teleioô: complete, round off (a task), to crown (put the finishing touch); accomplish, execute; consecrate, sanctify (through martyrdom)

Additional meanings for the the passive form (the case here): to be finished, accomplished;*often: *reach full growth, to grow to adulthood, come to maturity.

I think someone is “reaching” to make it mean “paid in full”.

But I invite you to read Dr. Scott Hahn’s most interesting interpretation, which makes sense to me. You can find it at
webpages.marshall.edu/~trimbol3/4thcup4.htm

Difficult to read in the red print. I suggest you print it out.

I’m merely asking what makes Catholic teaching on the matter any different than trying to “earn our way there” in virtually the same manner as the OT sacrifices and atonements?

It is clear from so many New Testament texts, expecially Hebrews that Jesus made his sacrifice once and for all. Catholics do not believe that they “earn” their way to heaven, if only it were because we need God’s grace to have even the slightest good thought.

However, we do believe that God, in his goodness,and in consideration of the merits of Jesus Christ, has deigned to give value to our good deeds, not that we could “earn” justification (which is given through baptism) or even salvation (which is the perseverance in the state of grace obtained through justification). What value? The continued help of God’s grace and a “better place” in heaven. What does a “better place” in heaven mean. It means an enhancing of sanctifying grace (the grace of justification) that will enable us to enjoy the beatific vision to a greater degree.

To understand this more fully, I suggest you read a section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, starting with par.1987 and that you can find here

I will not have access to a computer for a couple of weeks. So I will not be able to answer your subsequent posts in the immediate.

God bless.

Verbum
 
40.png
Verbum:
I think someone is “reaching” to make it mean “paid in full”.
Verbum
Click to expand...
I don’t think it matters. What matters is what was “paid in full” :rolleyes:

Step1.) I look at it as Christ “Paid in full” the price of our sins so we could even ENTER heaven.

Step2.) Now what we have to do is accept this gift. And show Him that we want to go. “Pick up our crosses and follow him”

Which is why he brought salvation for all, but at the same time not all will be saved.

Step 2.) it seems is where a lot of discussion comes up.
It implies that you must keep accepting his gift and that it is possible to not accept it, even after you have initially accepted it. (Through mortal sin, unrepented sin, or just rejecting it).
 
40.png
Will:
Step1.) I look at it as Christ “Paid in full” the price of our sins so we could even ENTER heaven.

Step2.) Now what we have to do is accept this gift. And show Him that we want to go. “Pick up our crosses and follow him”

Which is why he brought salvation for all, but at the same time not all will be saved.

Step 2.) it seems is where a lot of discussion comes up.
It implies that you must keep accepting his gift and that it is possible to not accept it, even after you have initially accepted it. (Through mortal sin, unrepented sin, or just rejecting it).
Click to expand...
I like this summation. Even those who believe that we are saved by “faith alone” think that one must DO something to obtain salvation: at the very least–accept Christ. Acceptance of Christ is a human action; something we must DO in order to be saved.

If salvation required no human action whatsoever, then it would be impossible for anyone not to be saved, since God desires the salvation of all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top