Question on Salvation

[tom25]

As I understand, while the Catholic Church and most Protestant churchs have no longer damned each other over the doctrines on how one is saved before God, there is still general consensus on both sides that other is wrong. Can someone please tell me how I am wrong on the view of salvation.

As I understand it (from the Bible, Reformation Theology, and a few ECF),
Justification, Sanctification, and Glorification, and 3 seperate, and causally connected parts of our salvation.

• Justification is given to us by God when He gives us faith in His Son Jesus Christ. (aka, by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone). We are no more responsible for our coming to saving faith in God than we are for being born by our parents.
• Sanctification is a natural response to that where in grow holiness and righteousness in this life through regularly recieving the sacraments, obediently following His will, and trying to cultivate a relationship with Him (and no don’t mean in a vague sales pitch way. I mean as in studying scripture, prayer, particular devotions, and meditation).
• Glorification is when stand before God and reflect His glory and are called sons and daughters of His in His presence.

I believe that all three are related, but a person can be justified and go to heaven without being sanctified (a deathbed convert), but a “sanctified” person cannot go to heaven without being justified (like a righteous heathen).

From everything I have read and heard, this is a standard Reformational (i.e. Lutheran and Calvinist) soterology that I have laid out. So to wrap up, in the eyes of the RCC, how am I wrong, and for that matter, do I have anything right?

PS - Sorry if anyone is annoyed that I captalized the He and His so often. If I am referring to God with it, I just feel that I should. So that is why I do that.

 

[JRKH]

This may not be the most precise explanation but here is how I understand the Catholic idea on this.

What you describe above as three different things are all part and parcel of the one. “Justification”, “Sanctification”, “Glorification” in the Catholic understanding are all part of “Ongoing Justification”.

What you refer to as Justification, we might call “Initial Justification” and as you say it places us in a good spot should we die soon after coming to belief. Sanctification then is part of the ongoing process that stems from “Baptism” - that is being immersed in and changed by the Grace of God…Infusion rather than simple imputation.

Think of it like this. You desire to join an extremely prestigious and highly regarded organization. As a part of joining, you are instructed in what is expected of the members in moral codes, community service, etc. You agree to these and are accepted in - “baptized” - as it were.
By virtue of this acceptance, this baptism, you are fully a member, and if you dies the next day you would be remembered forever as a “member in good standing”. However - if you do not die - but after a time you fail to live up to the requirements you agreed to, steps would be taken to remove from the roles of “member in good standing” - even to the point of expelling you.

So it is with justification. Initially we are justified by “imputation” like the person joining the group, but over time that “imputation” must become “infusion” otherwise we show ourselves to be false and the initial imputation is withdrawn.
See what I mean?

So it isn’t so much that you are wrong - it is more that you separate and define these things differently than we do.

I hope you can understand my ramblings above.

Peace
James

 

[Khalid]

The synergism of prevenient grace and free will, which is often mischaracterized by Protestants, especially of the Calvinist bent, as Pelagianism.

From the Canons of Trent:

The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace.

 

[JRKH]

Tom,
You might find THIS from the Catechism to be helpful in understanding as well.

Peace
James

 

[Cat_Herder]

Justification is given to us by God when He gives us faith in His Son Jesus Christ. (aka, by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone). We are no more responsible for our coming to saving faith in God than we are for being born by our parents.

The “grace alone through faith alone” formula sounds good in theory but is very flawed in practice. I’ve explained several times why it doesn’t work. But, long story short, if faith is required to receive grace then it isn’t really grace. Plenty of people are saved WITHOUT faith, such as babies, children below the age of reason, mentally infirm, invincibly ignorant, etc., so “grace alone” salvation cannot be by “faith alone.” Grace alone really does mean grace alone. Faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit that comes after justification; it is not a precondition of justification.

• Sanctification is a natural response to that where in grow holiness and righteousness in this life through regularly recieving the sacraments, obediently following His will, and trying to cultivate a relationship with Him (and no don’t mean in a vague sales pitch way. I mean as in studying scripture, prayer, particular devotions, and meditation).

After justification one must demonstrate a living, working faith to remain justified.

[BIBLEDRB]Hebrews 10:26-29[/BIBLEDRB]

The process of growing in that living and working faith, and thus growing closer to God, is what you refer to as sanctification and is also called Christian perfection by the Methodists.

• Glorification is when stand before God and reflect His glory and are called sons and daughters of His in His presence.

It is possible to be before God and not yet be glorified. That is what happens when someone dies without being fully sanctified. That state of being justified and yet less than fully sanctified is called purgatory.

I believe that all three are related, but a person can be justified and go to heaven without being sanctified (a deathbed convert), but a “sanctified” person cannot go to heaven without being justified (like a righteous heathen).

And that’s the problem with putting conditions on grace, namely faith. This formula would leave all children and all mentally infirm out of heaven along with all of the righteous heathens.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

From everything I have read and heard, this is a standard Reformational (i.e. Lutheran and Calvinist) soterology that I have laid out.

Based on the above Scripture I think you can see the problem with Calvinism. Jesus died for everyone, not just the special people. Everyone has a chance to be saved; the reason why hell has a population greater than zero is because some people decline the opportunity.

PS - Sorry if anyone is annoyed that I captalized the He and His so often. If I am referring to God with it, I just feel that I should. So that is why I do that.

I don’t see why you would think that anyone would be annoyed by giving the Lord the respect that is due to Him.

 

[tom25]

So that I understand it, the RCC officially stands in line with syngerism? Does that mean monergism is condemned?

CatHerder, 1) the link you provided reads like you are arguing by absurdity.

1. Your criticisism of “grace alone through faith alone” seems to be more applicable to contemporary Evangelicals. Grace alone is unmerited favor (which I am assuming we agree on if I read correctly). Faith alone is that faith is given to us from God, and that faith is that we, for lack of a better term, are enlightened or made alive to God’s unmerited favor.
2. Thank you for sharing on Methodism. I knew that Wesley held something to that, but I didn’t know if that was held as a denominational teaching.
3. Age of Accountability for Children is a figment of imagination not found in scripture.
4. Going to the mentally infirm is trying to use rare examples to define a doctrine. Unless a person is born brain dead they can exhibit a minimal standard, such as Romans 10:9-10
   9 For if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
   10 For, with the heart, we believe unto justice; but, with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation.
5. When looking at Calvinism I would think it is best to judge it by their doctrinal statements, like the Canons of Dort.
6. Being honest, good layout with purgatory. If you don’t mind can you give scripture to the existance of purgatory.
7. you gave verses to confound the Calvinist position on double predestination, how would you address these verses (just to name a few)

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day.

Ephesians 1:4-5 4 As he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted in his sight in charity.
5 Who hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children through Jesus Christ unto himself: according to the purpose of his will:

Acts 4:27-28 27 For of a truth there assembled together in this city against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel,
28 To do what thy hand and thy counsel decreed to be done.
(BTW props for the Douay-Rheims use)

As far as being annoyed at me capitolizing pronoun references to God, I am kinda self-conscience in that respect. So I felt I should apologize it. Just a thing about me.

 

[Cat_Herder]

So that I understand it, the RCC officially stands in line with syngerism? Does that mean monergism is condemned?

That depends on what you mean by monergism. If by monergism you mean that God wills people to salvation, then given from Revelation that there is a hell and its population is greater than zero, there are only two possibilities:

(1) God does not will everyone to salvation but only a chosen few. This is Calvinism; it violates 1 Tim 2:3-4 and makes it impossible to conclude that God is Love, and that makes the entire religion fall apart. Imagine an earthly father who has two children. One child is locked in the basement by that father and left to starve and the other is given everything she asks for and lives a life of perfect happiness. There is no way to conclude that this father is a loving person.

(2) God DOES will everyone to be saved, and since there is a hell, that means that people have free will and may, despite God’s election, choose not to be saved and God will (sadly) honor that choice. This is the correct belief and is supported by plenty of Scripture.

[BIBLEDRB]Hebrews 10:26-29[/BIBLEDRB]

Now I would say that (2) is not synergism but rather monergism with free will. God’s election, that is, His sanctifying grace, is what brings about salvation. The problem is that there is a devil and that the enemy and the various evil spirits, as well as the fallen nature of the world, make various attacks upon the elect to try to deceive them into committing a mortal sin and thus cutting them off from God. God responds by providing additional actual graces that assist the person to fight this spiritual battle. God is involved at all points; nevertheless, some people would call this synergism. In the end the word you use to describe it doesn’t matter, what does matter is that God loves us too much to strip us of our free will.

CatHerder, 1) the link you provided reads like you are arguing by absurdity.

I don’t think it’s absurd that God is Love and that He would not will anyone to damnation or force anyone into one eternal destiny or another. I’ll explain…

1. Your criticisism of “grace alone through faith alone” seems to be more applicable to contemporary Evangelicals. Grace alone is unmerited favor (which I am assuming we agree on if I read correctly).

Faith alone is that faith is given to us from God, and that faith is that we, for lack of a better term, are enlightened or made alive to God’s unmerited favor.

That sounds good except for the “alone” part, because saying “faith alone” implies that once such faith is established, salvation cannot be lost, which is incorrect as stated above.

1. Age of Accountability for Children is a figment of imagination not found in scripture.

You are correct that it is not in Scripture, but incorrect as to whether it exists. The age of reason exists and is actually part of Sacred Tradition. Contemporary evangelicals are fond of denying that there is such a thing as Sacred Tradition but virtually all of them accept an age of reason; yet another contradiction.

1. Going to the mentally infirm is trying to use rare examples to define a doctrine.

I wish I could say that mental infirmity is rare. St. Dymphna, pray for us.

Unless a person is born brain dead they can exhibit a minimal standard, such as Romans 10:9-10

9 For if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For, with the heart, we believe unto justice; but, with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation.

What if the person is mute? And even if that means what you say it does, what if the person commits a mortal sin later? Throwing out proof text scriptures saying “if a person does this then they must be saved/part of the elect” is basically setting up salvation by works. Even though Baptism does remit all sin, it does not preclude the possibility of future sin.

1. When looking at Calvinism I would think it is best to judge it by their doctrinal statements, like the Canons of Dort.

At the core of Calvinism is the double-predestination business, which is a denial that God wills everyone to be saved; that is a clear violation of 1 Timothy 2:3-4 and a cause of ethnic strife and many wars. Calvinism should be discarded for the same reason that Marxism should be discarded–what’s at the core of both is a denial of free will, which is the same as denying that God is Love. A loving God would not force anyone into hell–or heaven.

And that is why there is purgatory. People who are there are not yet ready to enter heaven and God is unwilling to drag them into the pearly gates or otherwise use coercion to accomplish their salvation. The soul in purgatory must choose to renounce any remaining worldly attachments, in other words, must choose to love God completely.

1. Being honest, good layout with purgatory. If you don’t mind can you give scripture to the existance of purgatory.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Rev 21:27[/BIBLEDRB]

1. you gave verses to confound the Calvinist position on double predestination, how would you address these verses (just to name a few)
   John 6:44 …
   Ephesians 1:4-5 …
   Acts 4:27-28 27 …

There’s nothing in any of those verses that says that the non-elect are willed to damnation by God rather than their having chosen hell. God is Love; it is unthinkable that He would will such a thing.

 

[yablabo]

As I understand, while the Catholic Church and most Protestant churchs have no longer damned each other over the doctrines on how one is saved before God, there is still general consensus on both sides that other is wrong. Can someone please tell me how I am wrong on the view of salvation.

…

From everything I have read and heard, this is a standard Reformational (i.e. Lutheran and Calvinist) soterology that I have laid out. So to wrap up, in the eyes of the RCC, how am I wrong, and for that matter, do I have anything right?

You state that the Catholic Church no longer damns over doctrines on how one is saved before God, but to my knowledge the Catholic Church has never “damned” anyone for such. The Church DOES condemn those who hold heresy, as is evident in both the canons of the Ecumenical Councils and the Code of Canon Law.

Case in point: there was a Joint Declaration awhile back (in 1997?) between some group who called themselves the “catholic church” and some group who called themselves the “lutheran world federation” regarding the doctrine of Justification. The Joint Declaration merited an official response from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity in agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which remind those involved in the Joint Declaration that the anathemas of Trent yet bind:

“So, for all these reasons, it remains difficult to see how, in the current state of the presentation, given in the Joint Declaration, we can say that this doctrine on ‘simul iustus et peccator’ is not touched by the anathemas of the Tridentine decree on original sin and justification.”

So, what was once a belief condemned by the Church, is still a belief condemned.
The best thing that I can think of recommending is to read the fifth and sixth sessions of the Council of Trent. That is THE go-to document on the issue of Justification.

Chapter seven in the sixth session of the Council of Trent also deals with “sanctification.” It’s readily perceivable that sanctification is a “part” of Justification in which one who is translated to justice receives the Holy Spirit into his soul, Who pours into the soul the three theological virtues at once (faith, hope and charity).

This notion of “glorification” is a novel term to my eyes. I have never heard it in conjunction with Catholic doctrine.

Here is a link for the Joint Declaration: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

Here is a link for the Official Response to the Joint Declaration: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_01081998_off-answer-catholic_en.html

Here is a link to the fifth and sixth sessions of the Council of Trent regarding Original Sin and Justification: tearsofourlady.blogspot.com/2011/11/fifth-and-sixth-sessions-of-council-of.html

Best wishes in your search.

– Nicole

 

[Khalid]

You missed the verses in 2 Maccabees that mention Purgatory clearly. One of the main reasons that Luther took 2 Maccabees and 6 other Old Testament books, accepted from the time of the Apostles themselves, out of his, and future Protestants’, Bibles. He also tried to take Hebrews, James, Revelation, and I believe 2 Peter out of the New Testament, but failed for what reason I don’t know (although a legacy of this is found in German Bibles, where those books are put in a separate section after the NT, like the Deuterocanonical books and some Apocrypha are in some Protestant translations and all “Ecumenical” editions, such as the ESV with Apocrypha, the Good News Translation, the Common English Version, the RSV, the NRSV, the original KJV, etc.).

 

[Cat_Herder]

You state that the Catholic Church no longer damns over doctrines on how one is saved before God, but to my knowledge the Catholic Church has never “damned” anyone for such. The Church DOES condemn those who hold heresy, as is evident in both the canons of the Ecumenical Councils and the Code of Canon Law.

Let’s make sure we define what heresy is and isn’t.
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

Footnotes are omitted. Click here to access a searchable copy of the Catechism that may well answer a lot of your questions.

 

[yablabo]

Let’s make sure we define what heresy is and isn’t.

Footnotes are omitted. Click here to access a searchable copy of the Catechism that may well answer a lot of your questions.

Hi, Cat Herder,

I don’t have any questions on heresy at the moment. It’s defined in can. 751 in the Code of Canon Law, too.

– Nicole

 

[Cat_Herder]

Hi, Cat Herder,

I don’t have any questions on heresy at the moment. It’s defined in can. 751 in the Code of Canon Law, too.

– Nicole

I’m sure you don’t. That was directed at the OP… we don’t want him to read into the JDDJ issues that Protestants who were born into Protestant churches are guilty of heresy or schism.

 

[tom25]

CatHerder and yablabo, when I refer to the church damning anyone, it is precisely for doctrinal issues. In the Canons on the Council of Trent when it says “let him be anathema”, I am working with the definition that anathema means damned.
In particular the points 5, 18, and probably 17 would impact me. (The Sixth Session seems to be covering everyone in that, and I mean everyone).
The Link I used is, history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html
Also, as I understand, the JDDJ appears to be trying to blur the edges. That and, personally, with what I see from the ELCA, I don’t trust doctrinal statements that they would tout. Reasonable bias or not? I don’t know, I just have it. Sorry.

Also, when I say monergism, I precisely mean, that unless God takes a particular action in saving you, you’re lost. I would not condemn pervenient grace as such, but I don’t hold it and I wouldn’t teach it.

Khalid, I read the passage in 2 Maccabees 12, no reference to purgatory. Moreover I would recommend you read what Luther actually said about the epistles in question in the first place. My prof. had us read it in class and Luther’s opposition to James was rooted on in not talking about Jesus. If Luther had a complete say on the canon he have chosen; the Gospel of John, 1st John, and some of Paul’s writings. Personally I very much like 1 & 2 Maccabees and Tobit.

As far as Calvinism goes, I will be honest and say it is wierd defending a theology I don’t particularly hold, so please bear that in mind. I think the best summarization I can work with is what a Reformed Baptist pastor told me on how to approach it - your options; God saves everyone (universalism), God saves the elect, or God saves no one (He does make it possible for you to be saved or semi-pelagianism). Universalism and Semi-Pelagianism are condemned heresies leaving only election. Now me speaking personally here, I stand by the Lutheran ideal that is God actively saves people and there are still people in hell, and I freely admit that I don’t know how those facts work together in this life.
I do recommend consulting some of these when judging Calvinism.
reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html
reformed.org/documents/index.html
monergism.com/directory/link_category/Reformed-Theology/Calvinism/ (most of the site is a good source but this link is the most expressedly Calvinistic)
And pretty much anything written by R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton, or John Piper
It is in bad form to condemn viewpoints from characterizations. I could try to slander the RCC based on the nonsense spouted by a number of contemporay evangelicals have said, but that would be immoral and intellectually dishonest. Having read stuff like the Aquinas Catechism, Calvary and the Mass, “enjoying” (not sure for a better description) the tridentine mass, and slowing working through A Priest is not His Own, True Devotion to Mary, and The Catechism of the Council of Trent, I have seen much I admire and feel no problem defending for Catholicism, much the same with Calvinism. You don’t have to look at all of them, but learning that Calvinism’s starting point is God’s glory is probably a better way to start out looking at their theology than assuing God is a loveless bully.

 

[tom25]

PS - When I say slowly, I am working a full-time job and taking 2 masters level course, free time to read is hard to find sometimes.

 

[Khalid]

The reference in 2 Macc is about prayers for the dead, which presupposes Purgatory, even if that term is not used: it presupposes the conception of Purgatory. Otherwise, prayers for the dead and offerings for the dead are less than useless.

 

[tom25]

Khalid, I can see your reasoning for 2 Macc. I just have a hard time seeing that it is a mandatory extension.

 

[yablabo]

CatHerder and yablabo, when I refer to the church damning anyone, it is precisely for doctrinal issues. In the Canons on the Council of Trent when it says “let him be anathema”, I am working with the definition that anathema means damned.
In particular the points 5, 18, and probably 17 would impact me. (The Sixth Session seems to be covering everyone in that, and I mean everyone).
The Link I used is, history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html
Also, as I understand, the JDDJ appears to be trying to blur the edges. That and, personally, with what I see from the ELCA, I don’t trust doctrinal statements that they would tout. Reasonable bias or not? I don’t know, I just have it. Sorry.

Hi, Tom25,

Anathema doesn’t mean damned. Part of the concept of anathema is that the person, or thing, which is now “anathema” has already been judged and is self-condemned. It is a type of excommunication which also includes a curse.

This is from the Second Council of Constantinople:

The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy. What reply can such people make to the Apostle when he writes: As for someone who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.

The Sixth Session of Trent is in reference to everyone, but especially those who profess to be Catholic. Those who are validly baptized, however, and transgress its Canons are in a really bad situation.

– Nicole

 

[tom25]

Thank you yablabo/Nicole (I saw you name on the bottom and now I am not sure how to reference you). Whenever I have heard people say that the Church never excommunicates anyone, I always thought that was either someone trying to copout or toning down the language. I didn’t know that came from the 2nd Council of Constantinople. I have to try and read that when I get the chance.

 

[JRKH]

And tying into the Constantinople reference above, is this passage in the Gospel Mt 18:
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
So - Whatever if meant to be a “tax collector” in the first century - is to be applied to those who refuses to listen - even to the Church.
My guess is it wasn’t good…

Peace
James