Salvation By Grace Alone

[Wesrock]

LatinRight:

If someone is a child/elect of God, in what point his/her salvation is “in the bag”?

Of course in Catholic theology we cannot know until we die we are God’s child/elect or not.

This is not an issue here, the issue is,

if someone is a God’s child/elect: What is the point when his/her salvation is “in the bag”?

Answers:
a. At the point of his/her election.
b. At the point of his/her baptism.
c. At the point when he/she dies in the state of grace.

**Which one of my above answer is correct a, b, or c.?

Thanks in advance.**

God bless Pablope and every readers of the CAF.

LatinRight

I would have to choose A.

Election I would agree with. Still, we risk placing God in time here. God does not think discursively. He does not “live” sequentially. To God, our election and our dying in a state of grace are part of the same eternal now. Dying in a state of grace is part of our cooperation with God, and it’s only then that our salvation is absolutely assured. However, we could not die in a state of grace unless we are elected from God, which is from all eternity. But the election is in eternity. It’s not really before, or a moment in time at all.

So I don’t disagree with answering election, at least as being first in order of dependency. I just disagree with calling it a “point” (in time). The election is in eternity. The dying in a state of grace is THE point in time, though it is still dependent on the election. And I think the lack of this distinction is where “assurance of salvation” theology is rooted.

 

[fhansen]

Election I would agree with. Still, we risk placing God in time here. God does not think discursively. He does not “live” sequentially. To God, our election and our dying in a state of grace are part of the same eternal now. Dying in a state of grace is part of our cooperation with God, and it’s only then that our salvation is absolutely assured. However, we could bot die in a state of grace unless we are elected from God, which is from all eternity. But the election is in eternity. It’s not really before, or a moment in time at all.

So I don’t disagree with answering election, at least as being first in order of dependency. I just disagree with calling it a “point” (in time). The election is in eternity. The dying in a state of grace is THE point in time, though it is still dependent on the election. And I think the lack of this distinction is where “assurance of salvation” theology is rooted.

Yes, the doctrine of election becomes a rather academic point since we cannot have 100% certainty who it applies to; God, alone, knows with certainty whose names are written in the Book of Life. And this is why writers of the New Testament continuously warn and admonish the “elect” to “make their calling and election sure”, to strive, persevere, remain faithful, refrain from sin, be holy, ‘without which no one will inherit eternal life’, be perfect, invest ones talents, etc, etc. Even St Paul, in Phil 3, tells us that he was striving so that he could attain what he did not yet possess.

 

[Wesrock]

And I think the lack of this distinction is where “assurance of salvation” theology is rooted.

I’d like to rephrase this part, and I feel it’s important enough to warrant a new post even after the EDIT function has timed out. It would be easy here to accuse the Catholic (or at least me) of being too rational or philosophical in making up with this distinction. So, without further ado:

And I think the lack of this mystery is where “assurance of salvation” theology is rooted.

And I make that change with no compromise to the integrity of my point. If anything, I think the “assurance of salvation” theology is the over-rationalization or simplification that leads to error, putting the infinite and incomprehensible in a box, making things all neatly and temporally ordered, not able to reconcile predestination and (true) free will, so man becomes a passive recipient only of grace and not an active cooperator with it.

 

[LatinRight]

Election I would agree with. Still, we risk placing God in time here. God does not think discursively. He does not “live” sequentially. To God, our election and our dying in a state of grace are part of the same eternal now. Dying in a state of grace is part of our cooperation with God, and it’s only then that our salvation is absolutely assured. However, we could not die in a state of grace unless we are elected from God, which is from all eternity. But the election is in eternity. It’s not really before, or a moment in time at all.

So I don’t disagree with answering election, at least as being first in order of dependency. I just disagree with calling it a “point” (in time). The election is in eternity. The dying in a state of grace is THE point in time, though it is still dependent on the election. And I think the lack of this distinction is where “assurance of salvation” theology is rooted.

God bless Wesrock and every reads of the CAF.

I knew my answer a, theologically not exactly correct, but I want to answer it as simple way as possible without going into the details.

I know in harmony with your post Wesrock **I should answer as follows:

Answers:**
a. His/her salvation is “in the bag” from all eternity.
b. His/her salvation is “in the bag” from the point of baptism.
c. His/her salvation is “in the bag” from the point dies in the state of grace.

Which one of my above answer is correct a, b, or c.?

Thanks your post and correction.

God bless Wesrock and every reads of the CAF.

LatinRight

 

[LatinRight]

Election I would agree with. Still, we risk placing God in time here. God does not think discursively. He does not “live” sequentially. To God, our election and our dying in a state of grace are part of the same eternal now. Dying in a state of grace is part of our cooperation with God, and it’s only then that our salvation is absolutely assured. However, we could not die in a state of grace unless we are elected from God, which is from all eternity. But the election is in eternity. It’s not really before, or a moment in time at all.

So I don’t disagree with answering election, at least as being first in order of dependency. I just disagree with calling it a “point” (in time). The election is in eternity. The dying in a state of grace is THE point in time, though it is still dependent on the election. And I think the lack of this distinction is where “assurance of salvation” theology is rooted.

**God bless Wesrock and every reads of the CAF.

If someone is a child/elect of God, in what point his/her salvation is “in the bag”?**

I knew my answer a, theologically not exactly correct, but I want to answer it as simple way as possible without going into the details.

I know in harmony with your post Wesrock **I should answer as follows:

Answers:**
a. His/her salvation is “in the bag” from all eternity.
b. His/her salvation is “in the bag” from the point of baptism.
c. His/her salvation is “in the bag” from the point dies in the state of grace.

**Which one of my above answer is correct a, b, or c.?

Thanks your post and correction.
**

God bless Wesrock and every reads of the CAF.

LatinRight

 

[Tomyris]

Y’all are wandering off the opening question. It’s like it is hard for you to admit that ‘Salvation by grace alone’ is something a Catholic can agree with.

But as for assurance of salvation, Reformed theologian Wayne Grudem says the way you know you are saved is by honestly examining your life: are you growing in faith, charity and hope and good works, or not.

 

[Wesrock]

Y’all are wandering off the opening question. It’s like it is hard for you to admit that ‘Salvation by grace alone’ is something a Catholic can agree with.

But as for assurance of salvation, Reformed theologian Wayne Grudem says the way you know you are saved is by honestly examining your life: are you growing in faith, charity and hope and good works, or not.

We’re just used to the way some protestants interpret _____ alone statements.

Perhaps you, Tomyris, could clarify if you believe that “grace alone” means man must be a passive recipient only or if allowing for man’s active cooperation is permissible.

(Edited the post because I overstated recent posts. Not that others disagree, but I put words in the mouths of others that wasn’t actually said.)

 

[Tomyris]

We’re just used to the way some protestants interpret _____ alone statements.

Billy, LatinRight, fhansen and myself just agreed that salvation is solely due to God’s election to grace. (I hope I mischaracterized no one).

Perhaps you, Tomyris, could clarify if you believe that this means man must be a passive recipient only or if allowing for man’s active cooperation is permissible.

Salvation is by grace alone.

The Reformed break justification into two components for analysis which in reality are viewed as inseparable: justification and sanctification. Initial justification is entirely passive, as we were dead in our sins and could do nothing. Sanctification requires cooperation, but that cooperation is a matter of a freed will undergirded by grace because the human will is fallen along with the rest of man. So it is still salvation by grace alone. I cannot claim to have merited my way to heaven by my free choices, it is still a matter of grace. It is a gift, not by works, so that no one could boast.

If we earn our way to heaven, the wages would be low because we are unworthy servants. Rather we should accept the free gift of salvation, part of which is a training in cooperation as we submit our free will, or rather will freed by grace from the condition of enslavement to sin, to God. Just as a drowning man will seek air, so a free will will seek God. Only a will enslaved to sin would insist on drowning.

 

[fhansen]

Y’all are wandering off the opening question. It’s like it is hard for you to admit that ‘Salvation by grace alone’ is something a Catholic can agree with.

But as for assurance of salvation, Reformed theologian Wayne Grudem says the way you know you are saved is by honestly examining your life: are you growing in faith, charity and hope and good works, or not.

Protestants hold varying opinions on how one can know they’re saved. But fruit in ones life is evidence of being in a state of justice, not absolute proof, and certainly no proof of final perseverance. The Church considers such assurance to be rash, unbalanced, presumptive, lacking in humility.

As to salvation, the CC would say that salvation is as impossible without grace as it is for a drowning man to save himself without being thrown a life preserver. He’s completely lost without the “savior” who comes to rescue him, and yet he can always refuse to grab hold. God doesn’t force the life preserver on us; He doesn’t force salvation on us.

 

[Tomyris]

Protestants hold varying opinions on how one can know they’re saved. But fruit in ones life is evidence of being in a state of justice, not absolute proof, and certainly no proof of final perseverance. The Church considers such assurance to be rash, unbalanced, presumptive, lacking in humility.

As to salvation, the CC would say that salvation is as impossible without grace as it is for a drowning man to save himself without being thrown a life preserver. He’s completely lost without the “savior” who comes to rescue him, and yet he can always refuse to grab hold. God doesn’t force the life preserver on us; He doesn’t force salvation on us.

Did you read my post just above this before you wrote this? I used the drowning man metaphor as well.

 

[Wesrock]

Salvation is by grace alone.

The Reformed break justification into two components for analysis which in reality are viewed as inseparable: justification and sanctification. Initial justification is entirely passive, as we were dead in our sins and could do nothing. Sanctification requires cooperation, but that cooperation is a matter of a freed will undergirded by grace because the human will is fallen along with the rest of man. So it is still salvation by grace alone. I cannot claim to have merited my way to heaven by my free choices, it is still a matter of grace. It is a gift, not by works, so that no one could boast.

If we earn our way to heaven, the wages would be low because we are unworthy servants. Rather we should accept the free gift of salvation, part of which is a training in cooperation as we submit our free will, or rather will freed by grace from the condition of enslavement to sin, to God. Just as a drowning man will seek air, so a free will will seek God. Only a will enslaved to sin would insist on drowning.

The RCC terminology doesn’t use two different terms (justification and sanctification), but insofar as I understand the RCC position, which I fully try to submit to, what you wrote is not itself in conflict with the RCC position, and is in fact in full agreement with it.

If anyone more informed has anything to add or correct…

 

[fhansen]

Salvation is by grace alone.

The Reformed break justification into two components for analysis which in reality are viewed as inseparable: justification and sanctification. Initial justification is entirely passive, as we were dead in our sins and could do nothing. Sanctification requires cooperation, but that cooperation is a matter of a freed will undergirded by grace because the human will is fallen along with the rest of man. So it is still salvation by grace alone. I cannot claim to have merited my way to heaven by my free choices, it is still a matter of grace. It is a gift, not by works, so that no one could boast.

If we earn our way to heaven, the wages would be low because we are unworthy servants. Rather we should accept the free gift of salvation, part of which is a training in cooperation as we submit our free will, or rather will freed by grace from the condition of enslavement to sin, to God. Just as a drowning man will seek air, so a free will will seek God. Only a will enslaved to sin would insist on drowning.

Reformers did, indeed, effectively separate justification from sanctificatio, in that only justification is necessarily for salvation in their view, whereas the CC views the two as an ongoing process; one must be truly righteous rather than merely *declared *so, which is born out by the way we live our lives with whatever time and opportunities we’re given, the results of which is judged in the end by an infinitely wise and just Judge.

 

[Tomyris]

Reformers did, indeed, effectively separate justification from sanctificatio, in that only justification is necessarily for salvation in their view, whereas the CC views the two as an ongoing process; one must be truly righteous rather than merely *declared *so, which is born out by the way we live our lives with whatever time and opportunities we’re given, the results of which is judged in the end by an infinitely wise and just Judge.

No, not really.

If you are justified you will be sanctified, and if you were sanctified, you had been justified. There is no separation.

If you refuse sanctification it is because you were not justified to begin with. Part of justification is healing the sick soul so he will realize it is in his best interest to grab that life preserver. Otherwise there would be a whole ocean full of empty life preservers, and Christ might have died for nothing. Sinful men need to be freed in the will to come to Him to begin with. If He does not heal the will, there is no salvation.

 

[Wesrock]

No, not really.

If you are justified you will be sanctified, and if you were sanctified, you had been justified. There is no separation.

If you refuse sanctification it is because you were not justified to begin with. Part of justification is healing the sick soul so he will realize it is in his best interest to grab that life preserver. Otherwise there would be a whole ocean full of empty life preservers, and Christ might have died for nothing. Sinful men need to be freed in the will to come to Him to begin with. If He does not heal the will, there is no salvation.

So a man cannot lose the grace/favor he received in his (initial) justification?

 

[Wesrock]

I must correct myself, as I said Tomyris’ summary was not in conflict with the RCC position. However, he calls justification passive.

Per Trent, Session 6:

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm

 

[Tomyris]

So a man cannot lose the grace/favor he received in his (initial) justification?

Can you lose your realized sanctification?

 

[Tomyris]

I must correct myself, as I said Tomyris’ summary was not in conflict with the RCC position. However, he

ahem

calls justification passive.

Per Trent, Session 6:

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm

I tend to think this is a semantic difference. Here Justification (Catholic) = Justification (Reformed) + Sanctification (Reformed).

 

[fhansen]

Can you lose your realized sanctification?

Of course; anyone can turn back away from God.

 

[Wesrock]

Can you lose your realized sanctification?

Yes. Again from Trent - Session 6. (Some of the canons on Justification from Trent I’m sure you would agree with, but perhaps not these. Also quoted some that just touch upon the loss of grace and justification.)

CANON XVII.-If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIII.-lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,-except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.

CANON XXVII.-If any one saith, that there is no mortal sin but that of infidelity; or, that grace once received is not lost by any other sin, however grievous and enormous, save by that of infidelity ; let him be anathema.

CANON XXVIII.-If any one saith, that, grace being lost through sin, faith also is always lost with it; or, that the faith which remains, though it be not a lively faith, is not a true faith; or, that he, who has faith without charity, is not a Christian; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taught; let him be anathema.

 

[fhansen]

I must correct myself, as I said Tomyris’ summary was not in conflict with the RCC position. However, he calls justification passive.

Per Trent, Session 6:

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm

And the Catechism echoes Trent in this while summing up the entire process:

**1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:

When God touches man’s heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God’s grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God’s sight.42
**