Regeneration/Born-Again

[bene7]

sandusky:

Correct me if I am wrong, but your explanation, in the above 3 posts, is more the Catholic idea of initial justification, which leaves open the necessity of works to regain lost justification. Is that correct?

EXACTLY!!! And one must understand Trent in this light. All that they build up regarding justification according to grace is then torn down by the fact that they then add conditions to it (such as, the avoidance of sin and our own love toward God). Conditions made possible based on the Catholic idea of “initial” justification - a concept found no where in Scripture. Wherever Tent uses the term “justification” one MUST mentally insert the word “initial.” “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.” “Error begets error.”

Blessings,
Bene

 

[Redbandito]

sandusky:

Dave the rewards you cite above are not the reward of salvation. The rewards above are promised to those who are justified. Justification is not the reward; you misuse the verses.

Begging the question. Prove it, outside of your assumption.

 

[Redbandito]

bene7:

EXACTLY!!! And one must understand Trent in this light. All that they build up regarding justification according to grace is then torn down by the fact that they then add conditions to it (such as, the avoidance of sin and our own love toward God). Conditions made possible based on the Catholic idea of “initial” justification - a concept found no where in Scripture. Wherever Tent uses the term “justification” one MUST mentally insert the word “initial.” “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.” “Error begets error.”

Blessings,
Bene

I could turn the same verses your way bene, but what does that prove? Again, you have not met your burden of proof. It is nice to continue to make such claims, but it flies in the face of the numerous verses thrown at you that say differently. The conditions weren’t added. They come from the original deposit of faith. You must completely disregard certain verses in Scripture to claim otherwise. Finally, grace is elevated to it’s highest level when it transforms us to be able to merit what we could not before. Your view of grace is narrow and devalues it. Correct me if I’m wrong, but your view of grace is solely unmerited favor. Our view of grace includes this aspect, but also says that it is God’s own divine life. If that’s the case, than grace doesn’t just seek to “overlook” our sinfulness, but rather to transfer us into being sinless. It doesn’t happen by our own power, but rather by grace. So, it still comes from grace alone. However, our continued cooperation also becomes a necessity.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Ch. 10 of Trent’s decree on justification in entitled, "Concerning the Increase of Justificaition Received." Thus, it pertains solely to those already in a state of grace.

Protestants are often bothered that we say the righteous (or justified) can be made righteous (or justified) still. They say that this is called sanctification. Catholics say this is called sanctification too, but we insist that it is perfectly in accord with Sacred Scripture to also say that the righteous are made righteous still.

The literal translation of Rev 22:11 states, “he who is righteous – let him be declared righteous still” (From the Protestant source, Young’s Literal Translation).

So, it is perfectly Biblical to describe the righteous being declared righteous still. The argument over this seems merely semantical in my view. The reason Trent chose this wording, is due to Rev 22:11.

This is where works comes into the picture, not before a “state of grace” or justification, but only after justification.

The literal translation of James 2:22 states: “the faith was working with his works, and out of the works the faith was perfected” (Young’s Literal Translation)

We believe that one of “little faith” can become a man of “great faith.” God blesses the faithful with more grace when they obey His will. C.H. Spurgeon says, “The Lord can only have fellowship with his servants as they obey.” We agree. But we insist that the Lord’s fellowship with the just as they obey advances the just “virtue to virtue” (Ps. 83:8), increases one’s holiness, further enlightens the intellect and strengthens the will such that the just are better equipped for tribulation. It makes “little faith” into “great faith.”

The fruit of justification, then, is meritorious works. And the fruit of meritorious works is increased sanctification, greater faith, stronger will, enlightened intellect, which all better equip the just to persevere. The reward for final perseverance is eternal life and Christ’s reward that he will bring and give the just according to their works.

This is what Catholicism calls “meritorious works,” which is distinguished from “natural works.” Natural works are man’s works apart from grace, which he does by nature alone. These works would bring man only to hell.

Meritorious works are really the work of Christ within man, which is why St. Augustine asserted, "“God works in man many good things to which man does not contribute; but man does not work any good things apart from God, since it is from God man receives the power to do the good things he does.”

Our reward for meritorious works cannot be going from a non-justified state to a justified state, because Trent has already stated, nothing merits the grace of justification. Meritorious work is the fruit of justification.

“And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward [Gk misthos] [is] with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.” (Rev 22:12)

Revelation says that Christ is bringing His reward to share with Christians when he comes again, and it will be given according to his works. Christ’s own “equal reward” (meritum adaequatum) will be shared with those made just by his grace, according to his works. That reward is surely an unequal reward (meritum inadaequatum) from the perspective of our deservedness, but it is truly a reward just the same, to be given to every justified man, according to “his work” on earth. Scripture says, “his work” but the Church has always insisted that this is the work of God within man, as St. Augustine teaches (see above), or if you prefer, “faith in action.” (CH Spurgeon).

Ch. 10 states,

Having, therefore, been thus justified and having been made “friends of God” and “his domestics” [Jn 15:15, Eph 2:19], “advancing from virtue to virtue” [Ps. 83:8], “they are renewed” (as the Apostle says) “from day to day” [2 Cor 4:16], that is, by mortifying the members of their flesh [Col 3:5], and by “presenting them as instruments of justice” [Rom 6:13, 19], unto santification through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church; in this justice received through the grace of Christ, “faith cooperating with good works” [Jas. 2:22], they increase and are further justified, as it is written, “he that is just, let him be justified still” [Rev 22:11], and again “be not afraid to be justified even to death” [Eccles. 18:22], and again: “You see, that by works a man is justified and not by faith only” [Jas. 2:24]. And this increase of justice Holy Church begs for, when she prays: “Give unto us, O Lord, an increase of faith, hope, and charity” [13th Sun. after Pent.]

 

[itsjustdave1988]

sandusky:

the necessity of works to regain lost justification. Is that correct?

This is an erroneous statement, which I will explain in more detail when that chapter of Trent comes up.

However, here’s a preview… since merit is the fruit of justification, only those in a state of grace can merit. In other words, one who is not in a state of grace CANNOT perform meritorious works or what is called in Catholic theology, “salutory acts.” One who lost justification cannot regain it through works or, meritorious or otherwise, because the condition for the performance of meritorious works is justification.

Thus, only a just man in a state of grace can perform meritorious works. If you understood this better, then you would know that your statement above is simply absurd.

I will explain in more detail shortly, with supporting documentation.

 

[sandusky]

Redbandito:

As they were for Paul and James.

Redbandito,

You understand Catholic theology, but what you don’t understand is what the Word of God says.

I offer this again:

What does James mean by his statement: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (2:24)? It has always been urged by Roman Catholic apologists (see Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Chapters VII, X) that James 2:14-26 is a corrective to the Protestant (not the Pauline) “heresy” that justification is through faith alone completely apart from works, for James expressly declares: “You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone [ex ergon dikaioutai anthropos kai ouk ek pisteos monon]” (2:24). But an exacting exegetical analysis of James’ teaching will disclose that in James’ teaching the accent falls upon the probative character of good works, whereas in the Pauline polemic the accent falls without question upon the judicially constitutive and declarative character of justification. Paul and James clearly mean something different by their use of the words “justified,” ‘faith,” and “works,” and they turn to different places in Genesis and thus to different events in Abraham’s life to support their respective applications of Gen 15:6. This much should be denied by no one.

Whereas Paul intends by “justified” and the ]i]actual act on God’s part whereby He pardons and imputes righteousness to the ungodly, James intends by “justified” the verdict which God declares when the actually (previously) justified man has demonstrated his actual righteous state by obedience and good works.

Whereas Paul intends by “faith” trustful repose in the merits of Christ alone for pardon and righteousness, James is addressing those whose “faith” was tending toward, if it had not already become, a cold, orthodox intellectualism in which bare assent is given to such propositions as “God is one”—which even the demons confess with seemingly greater appreciation, for they tremble—but which is devoid of any exhibition of love for the brethren.

Whereas Paul, when he repudiates “works,” intends by “works” “the works of the law,” that is, any and every work of whatever kind done for the sake of acquiring merit, James intends by “works” acts of kindness toward those in need performed as the fruit and evidence of a true and vital faith and the actual justified state. (2:14-17).

Whereas Paul is concerned with the question, how many a man achieve right standing before God, and turns to Gen 15:6 to find his answer, James is concerned with the question, how is a man to demonstrate that he has true faith and is therefore actually justified before Godd turns to Gen 22:9-10, as the probative “fulfillment” of Gen 15:6 (see Gen 22:12), to find his answer (2:21). Note his deixon, “show me”, and deixo, “I will show you in 2:18; his blepeis, “you see” in 2:22 and his horate, “you see” at the beginning of 2:24—the very verse under discussion: “You see that a man is justified by [his] works, and *not *by [his] faith alone.”

And that faith is not alone, it will be “proved” by works, but those works cannot save.

James deals with works in a purely probative manner with respect to faith.

If you deny that, then you must insist that scripture contradicts itself with respect to justification.

 

[sandusky]

Redbandito:

Begging the question. Prove it, outside of your assumption.

Again, you do not understand what the Word of God says, and you also do not understand logical argument. Your knowing and throwing logical terms around shows that.

If you read Dave’s response to my post, he himself admits the truth of what I say.

You are not paying attention.

 

[sandusky]

itsjustdave1988:

Yes, the rewards in the afterlife, in the context of positive rewards, are the rewards given to those already justified or what is also called in Catholicism, a “state of grace.” I never said otherwise, so I don’t understand what you mean by my misuse. You cannot persevere in faith unless you first have faith. You cannot have faith (fide formata or faith “formed by love”) without justification nor justification without faith (fide formata). They come as a gift packaged together from God. And as Trent taught, “none of those things which precede justification, whether faith, or works merit the grace itself of justification.” (Trent, Ch. 8, Decree on Justification).

Just so you know that this is not just my opinion, you should know that before our grandmothers were even born, the Catholic Church taught, “supernatural merit is only an effect or fruit of the state of grace” (*The Catholic Encyclopedia (1909), “Merit”). *

But I’m jumping ahead to ch. 16 again.

Now, back to Trent in context.

What I mean by “misuse,” is that bene7 asked in the context of justification.

No protestant, who is worth his salt, and understands scripture, denies that the believer receives rewards in heaven.

That is not the issue, nor is it the basis for bene’s question.

The question is the application of rewards to “Justification/Salvation,” scripture nowhere speaks of the “Reward” of Salvation, but the “Gift.”

 

[sandusky]

…Your view of grace is narrow and devalues it. Correct me if I’m wrong, but your view of grace is solely unmerited favor.

You are right, I view grace as unmerited favor from God. However, that does not devalue God’s grace, in fact, it elevates it, by admitting that there is nothing within me that merits such favor.

Redbandito:

Our view of grace includes this aspect, but also says that it is God’s own divine life. If that’s the case, than grace doesn’t just seek to “overlook” our sinfulness, but rather to transfer us into being sinless. It doesn’t happen by our own power, but rather by grace.

In fact, God’s “transferring us into being sinless,” does not happen at all. Again, you do not understand the Word of God. You are confusing sanctification—being set apart to holiness—with being sinless. Read Rom 7:14-25; a believer is never sinless, until he dies; when the flesh dies, the sin believer’s sin dies with it; as long as there is flesh, there is sin.

We are to be progress in holiness, not sinlessness; again, being sinless in this life is an impossibility, according to the Word of God.

Redbandito:

So, it still comes from grace alone. However, our continued cooperation also becomes a necessity.

I have always found this notion to be somewhat Pelagian.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

sandusky:

What I mean by “misuse,” is that bene7 asked in the context of justification.

No protestant, who is worth his salt, and understands scripture, denies that the believer receives rewards in heaven.

That is not the issue, nor is it the basis for bene’s question.

The question is the application of rewards to “Justification/Salvation,” scripture nowhere speaks of the “Reward” of Salvation, but the “Gift.”

Yes, you understand Calvinist theology. But you don’t understand Scripture. (wow, such perjoratives are easy, aren’t they, but do they have any convincing value?)

Scripture says that those who persevere to the end *will be saved. *(future tense). So, Catholics understand that “salvation” has three different senses in Scripture…

1. one being when one is first made righteous by God (“have been saved” in the past tense).
2. Another sense of salvation is when one is “advancing from virtue to virtue” [Ps. 83:8], or “they are renewed from day to day” [2 Cor 4:16] (“being saved” present tense)
3. The third sense of salvation is that which occurs when one perseveres unto the end, those “will be saved” (past tense).

Anyone who has studied Scripture is familiar with these three senses of salvation.

Scripture also speaks of justification by works and not by faith alone. We understand that to be “meritorious works” which are the fruit of justification, but helps the just man in “advancing from virtue to virtue,” which is necessary for one with “little faith” to become one of “great faith,” thereby growing in righteousness (justification) so they can better persevere in faith. Their perseverence to the end will be rewarded with eternal life (the third sense of salvation in Scripture).

 

[sandusky]

itsjustdave1988:

Yes, you understand Calvinist theology. But you don’t understand Scripture. (wow, such perjoratives are easy, aren’t they, but do they have any convincing value?)

Scripture says that those who persevere to the end will be saved. (future tense). So, Catholics understand that “salvation” has three different senses in Scripture…

1. one being when one is first made righteous by God (“have been saved” in the past tense).
2. Another sense of salvation is when one is “advancing from virtue to virtue” [Ps. 83:8], or “they are renewed from day to day” [2 Cor 4:16] (“being saved” present tense)
3. The third sense of salvation is that which occurs when one perseveres unto the end, those “will be saved” (past tense).

Dave, I agree that salvation is past, present and future, the language is clear.

I go beyond that, however, and also say that though it has those 3 aspects of time, scripture also presents salvation, at the same time, as being complete.

Go figure.

itsjustdave1988:

Scripture speaks of justification by works and not by faith alone. We understand that to be “meritorious works” which are the fruit of justification, but helps the just man in “advancing from virtue to virtue,” which is necessary for one with “little faith” to become one of “great faith,” thereby growing in righteousness so they can better persevere in faith. Their perseverence to the end will be rewarded with eternal life (the third sense of salvation in Scripture).

Again, Dave, I believe that your understanding of justification is incorrect.

You miss the point of Paul’s soteriology, and bring it into conflict with what James says.

It is misunderstanding, as I have shown.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I understand Calvin’s view, as I’ve read him too.

But the salvation that is complete, in the Catholic view, is the atonement of Christ. What is not complete is that perfect application of that sacrifice in our lives.

So, there are some that are not yet saved, as they are not born again. Salvation is in no way “complete” for them, although the atonement was.

There are those who are born again and are still being renewed day by day, so in this sense they are being saved although they were also already saved.

There are those who are already justified, battling tribulation and will continue to do so until the end of their life, and if they endure, they will be saved. These were saved, are being saved, and will be saved, what Catholics and Calvinists alike call the true elect.

 

[Redbandito]

sandusky:

Redbandito,

You understand Catholic theology, but what you don’t understand is what the Word of God says.

I offer this again:

What does James mean by his statement: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (2:24)? It has always been urged by Roman Catholic apologists (see Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Chapters VII, X) that James 2:14-26 is a corrective to the Protestant (not the Pauline) “heresy” that justification is through faith alone completely apart from works, for James expressly declares: “You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone [ex ergon dikaioutai anthropos kai ouk ek pisteos monon]” (2:24). But an exacting exegetical analysis of James’ teaching will disclose that in James’ teaching the accent falls upon the probative character of good works, whereas in the Pauline polemic the accent falls without question upon the judicially constitutive and declarative character of justification. Paul and James clearly mean something different by their use of the words “justified,” ‘faith,” and “works,” and they turn to different places in Genesis and thus to different events in Abraham’s life to support their respective applications of Gen 15:6. This much should be denied by no one.

Whereas Paul intends by “justified” and the ]i]actual

act on God’s part whereby He pardons and imputes righteousness to the ungodly, James intends by “justified” the verdict which God declares when the actually (previously) justified man has demonstrated his actual righteous state by obedience and good works.

Whereas Paul intends by “faith” trustful repose in the merits of Christ alone for pardon and righteousness, James is addressing those whose “faith” was tending toward, if it had not already become, a cold, orthodox intellectualism in which bare assent is given to such propositions as “God is one”—which even the demons confess with seemingly greater appreciation, for they tremble—but which is devoid of any exhibition of love for the brethren.

Whereas Paul, when he repudiates “works,” intends by “works” “the works of the law,” that is, any and every work of whatever kind done for the sake of acquiring merit, James intends by “works” acts of kindness toward those in need performed as the fruit and evidence of a true and vital faith and the actual justified state. (2:14-17).

Whereas Paul is concerned with the question, how many a man achieve right standing before God, and turns to Gen 15:6 to find his answer, James is concerned with the question, how is a man to demonstrate that he has true faith and is therefore actually justified before Godd turns to Gen 22:9-10, as the probative “fulfillment” of Gen 15:6 (see Gen 22:12), to find his answer (2:21). Note his deixon, “show me”, and deixo, “I will show you in 2:18; his blepeis, “you see” in 2:22 and his horate, “you see” at the beginning of 2:24—the very verse under discussion: “You see that a man is justified by [his] works, and *not *by [his] faith alone.”

And that faith is not alone, it will be “proved” by works, but those works cannot save.

James deals with works in a purely probative manner with respect to faith.

If you deny that, then you must insist that scripture contradicts itself with respect to justification.

No Sandusky. The problem with your whole argument is that it assumes that you have the correct interpretation of Paul. Thus, you interpret James through your misreprentation of Paul.

 

[bene7]

Philthy:

This statement is entirely consistent with the full scriptural context of salvation by grace through faith. The only difference I see is a difference in the concept of what faith is between yourself (non-Catholic) and Dave(Catholic).

Faith is faith. The difference lies in who/what one puts his faith in. Scripture is clear in that putting ones faith/trust in the Person and work of Jesus Christ he is given, gift-wise, full justification, full salvation, and at the moment of faith, life eternally. This IS the "full scriptural context of salvation by grace through faith.

"For example,“he who endures to the end will be saved” How, exactly do you incorporate that into Salvation is by Grace alone? And how, exactly do you incorporate that into ‘Salvation is through faith alone’ ? And please don’t respond that “those who are saved will endure to the end” as you have previously. Why not? Because this scripture does NOT say “those who ARE/HAVE BEEN saved will endure” but rather that those who do endure WILL BE saved. Big difference.

I agree, it is big difference. And that is exactly why I don’t interpret Matt. 24:13 in a soteriological sense, by the mere fact of you’ve astutely pointed out - “will be saved.” I don’t know if I said it in this thread or another, but no where is a man ever said to be saved through/by self-endurance. That verse, IN CONTEXT, is in reference to those who are living and going through the events/signs that take place at “the end of the age” (see vs. 3). Jesus Himself describes that time as a “great tribulation such has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall” (i.e., occur again). Context always defines the meaning of a word. And in this context, “saved” cannot be meant in its soteriological sense of redemption of one’s soul, but the one who endures (to the end) through those horrific times on earth will be spared his physical life.

Now I do believe, however, that a true believer will persevere in faith (i.e., in Christ). Like Peter, not always perfectly, nonetheless like Peter, he belongs to Christ, bought (redeemed) with the price of His shed blood, and Christ, his High Priest in Heaven, will strengthen him (Heb. 7:25).

You reject the Catholic understanding of endurance playing any role in salvation because you assume it creates an element of a “wage earned” for the individual. But it does not:

I reject the Catholic understanding of “endurance” because it’s not according to what is revealed, Biblically, regarding salvation according to God’s grace. Grace which is rooted in Christ’s endurance/obedience on the cross (never my own), whereby He procured my eternal salvation that it might be bestowed to me gift-wise. The ONLY endurance that plays “a role in salvation” is Christ’s on the cross. Otherwise, you’re right, it (personal endurance) must be reckoned as a wage earned according to Paul in Rom. 4:4.

All we have done is chosen to follow that path through faith rather than reject his gift to us in disobedience. Big difference.

Yet Scripture never speaks to the effect of accepting or rejecting “the gift.” That’s Catholic soteriology. The gospel message/proposition is to accept, by faith, what Christ has done FOR US and the “gift” (of salvation) is then given to us “in toto”: “For by grace you HAVE BEEN saved through faith…it is the gift of God” The content of said faith being the Person and work of Christ, He being the subject of the Gospel message.

Yes, Phil, I fully understand there is a “big difference” between us: you’ve chosen “a path,” whereas I’ve chosen Christ. You believe that by enduring that “path” it will get you there, whereas I believe that God, through Christ, via the cross, has already brought me there.

Blessings,
Bene

P.S. You misrepresented me in another thread stating that I believed that Jesus was not raised with the same body in which He died. Yet the point I was emphatically making throughout that thread was that He WAS raised in the SAME physical body in which He died. Just thought I’d clear that up.

 

[Redbandito]

sandusky:

Again, you do not understand what the Word of God says, and you also do not understand logical argument. Your knowing and throwing logical terms around shows that.

If you read Dave’s response to my post, he himself admits the truth of what I say.

You are not paying attention.

No sir. I think you need to pay more attention. Saying that Dave admits “the truth” of what you say is a half-truth. Dave agreed partially, but like your posts, there is more to the story. You will see.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

sadnusky:

If you read Dave’s response to my post, he himself admits the truth of what I say.

Hmmmmm…let me help you exegete my post…

I admitted that only the justfied will be rewarded in heaven. One must be made just by God before merit (in the positive sense) can occur.

Likewise, you must be made just by God before meritorious work can occur. Yet you implied Catholicism teaches one can merit their justification after they have fallen into mortal sin. Either you simply made that up or you are poorly exegeting Catholic teaching again. Meritorious works or “salutory acts” can only be done by those already in a state of grace. “The person meriting…must be in a state of grace” [Dr. Ludwig Ott, *Fundamentals of Catholic dogma (1955), pg. 266]

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

In fact, God’s “transferring us into being sinless,” does not happen at all. Again, you do not understand the Word of God. You are confusing sanctification—being set apart to holiness—with being sinless. Read Rom 7:14-25; a believer is never sinless, until he dies; when the flesh dies, the sin believer’s sin dies with it; as long as there is flesh, there is sin.

Ahhhh, no wonder you didn’t like it when I said it is not our eyes/hands which cause us to sin but our sin nature. You believe the body is bad, spirit is good. From the beginning it was not so. Wasn’t that an early controversy in the Church? Manicheans?
Kinda sounds like your blaming our sin on the creator of our bodies rather than on us.
These claims seem a little odd to me. A believer is never sinless until he dies? Why exactly is that the case? Someone who comes to christ and immediately is killed or enters into coma is not sinless? This squares up with 1John1:9? The consequences of such a belief seem difficult to reconcile. What happens to all who die before the age of reason? God simply ignores their sin?
I get the distinct feeling that some would say that you have put a limit on the transformative capabilities of Christ within our lives. Whoever is in Christ is a new creation, after all, and the old WAYS are gone - new things have come.

sandusky:

We are to be progress in holiness, not sinlessness; again, being sinless in this life is an impossibility, according to the Word of God.

So a progression of holiness is not concomitant with a progression of sinlessness? I thought holiness was separation from sin. What else could it possibly be?

Phil

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Ch. 11 of Trent’s decree on Justification states,

No one, however much justified, should consider himself exempt from the observance of the commandments

Antinomian: one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation (Merriam-Webster)

Antinomianism was all the rage after Luther proclaimed justification to be based upon faith alone. Luther struggled to refute it, but when one hears “faith alone,” antinomianism can easily result, and it still persists today.

Ch. 12 states,

except by special revelation, it cannot be known whom God has chosen for Himself.

This is counter to the Protestant claim that one can know with absolute certainty that they are among the elect. Calvinists often fall into this error. I knew a Presbyterian Pastor who claimed that he knew he was among the elect because of the conviction in him given to him by God. He was more than hopeful, but said he was absolutely certain he was among the elect, since he was “once saved, always saved.” Sadly, something happened (political or regarding money raising, its hard to get him to say), and he quit being a Pastor, and he now claims to be an atheist, and despite many discussions with him, he is still unconvinced that God even exists.

My other Calvinist friends insist he must not have really been among the elect. If that’s the case, it appears “eternal security” has no real meaning in Calvinist theology, as he surely thought he was “once saved always saved” all through his years before and during seminary and his years as a Presbyterian Pastor. It seems merely “thinking” you’re saved doesn’t quite suffice, which begs the question, how does a Calvinist really know?

Catholics too cannot know with absolute assurance that they have been given the gift of final perseverance. That would be presumptuous in our view. Instead, we are called to pray for such a gift, and to hope for it. Hope is set squarely in the middle of the two sinful extremes of presumption and despair.

 

[Redbandito]

sandusky:

You are right, I view grace as unmerited favor from God. However, that does not devalue God’s grace, in fact, it elevates it, by admitting that there is nothing within me that merits such favor.

No, it devalues grace, because grace is MORE than that. You are right to say that unmerited favor elevates grace above simply a “works of the law” theology. However, when you detract from grace by not giving it ENOUGH credit, which your theology doesn’t, you have devalued it. The difference is the standard of comparison you use. Again, grace is unmerited favor, BUT it is also God’s own divine life. This is transformative by its very nature.

sandusky:

In fact, God’s “transferring us into being sinless,” does not happen at all. Again, you do not understand the Word of God. You are confusing sanctification—being set apart to holiness—with being sinless. Read Rom 7:14-25; a believer is never sinless, until he dies; when the flesh dies, the sin believer’s sin dies with it; as long as there is flesh, there is sin.

Clearly, you are simply going to hurl half truths and mistruths at me all day, so we don’t ever really get to the issue. Nevertheless, I will give you a response. I didn’t ever state that we would become sinless “in this life”. However, the transformation has begun. You rightly called this process sanctification. I understand we all sin, but before we meet a maker, we must be spotless and pure. Remember what Eph 5 says that Christ did for His bride? Does that mean we will be sinless in this life? No! However, the transformation has begun that we will truly become “blameless” (Eph 5:27).

sandusky:

We are to be progress in holiness, not sinlessness; again, being sinless in this life is an impossibility, according to the Word of God.

Same deal. Read the above response.

sandusky:

I have always found this notion to be somewhat Pelagian.

That’s both because you don’t listen and because you don’t fully understand Pelagianism. Pelagianism teaches that we are capable of choosing good apart from the grace of God. The Catholic position clearly rejects this. In fact, you might not even know what Pelagianism was had the CATHOLIC Church not rejected it. Seems a bit disingenuous and slanderous to throw out such an accusation.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Ch. 13 speaks of the gift of final perseverence, stating:

… they ought to fear knowing that they are born again “unto the hope of glory,” [cf. 1 Pet 1:3] and not as yet unto glory in the combat that yet remains with the flesh, with the world, with the devil, in which they cannot be victors, unless with God’s grace they obey"

Ch. 14 speaks of how one who has fallen from grace, can recover the grace lost…

Those who by sin have fallen away from the received grace of justification, will again be able to be justified when, roused by God through the sacrament of penance, they by the merit of Christ shall have attended to the recovery of the grace lost.

There’s nothing about meritorious works referred to by Trent to recover a state of grace once lost, polemical claims to the contrary notwithstanding. The only merit involved is the condign merit of Christ. This applies for first justification, and if one should fall from grace, it also applies to recovery of the grace of justification.

The Sacraments, as I’ve stated before, are prayers instituted by Christ. [cf. 1 John 20:22, 23]. They are instruments of God, just as mud was the instrument of Christ in conveying the grace that healed the blind man. A Christian who prays either sacramentally or otherwise, does not set up a condign obligation upon God to receive that which he prays for.

I’ve been praying for my Presbyterian-friend-turned-atheist, for example, that he like Peter will be turned again toward Christ. However, I inherent in my prayer (and every prayer) is this: not my will, but God’s will be done. Sacraments are no exception. We pray for forgiveness, and because of our faith, we have hopeful confidence that we are restored to his friendship if joined with our prayer we have sorrow for our sins and a firm purpose of amendment.

Like with the Sacrament of Baptism or its desire, Trent teaches that “eternal punishment…is remitted together with the guilt either by the sacrament [of Penance] or the desire of the sacrament” (ch. 14).