Salvation by the merit of Christ

[Iron_Donkey]

The perfect life of Jesus obeying the will of God perfectly, and the sacrifical death of Jesus merted God’s forgivness and eternal favor for all those who are united to Christ. Therefore, Christ’s worked merited grace on our behalf.

I’m no expert, but my understanding is that the ability to do good (including to have faith), which is called actual grace, comes from God and the reception (as opposed to the acting on) of such grace does not require action on our part whatsoever - although God may give more grace as response to our actions (which themselves will be us cooperating with and following the grace He has already given us) such as participation in the sacraments. Actual grace then enables us to do good but does not require us to do so - we can freely cooperate with it and do good, or not.

The state of being in which one would go to heaven instead of Hell at death, which we call being in a state of grace, or which I believe is also called 'having sanctifying grace," is also a gift of God freely given and freely received, normally initially through baptism. It can be discarded.

Mortal sin is a grave, free and informed act in opposition to the graces God has given us. By it we demonstrate that we do not wish to act in accordance with the graces God has given us and essentially tell God that we prefer ourselves to Him. In this way, not only are we refusing to cooperate with the particular actual grace by our action/lack of action, but by the gravity of our action are refusing sanctifying grace as well.

It is my understanding that even in this state where we lack sanctifying grace, God still extends actual graces, which we can accept or not. One of these would be the ability(ies) to return to a state of grace via the sacrament of confession or a perfect act of contrition.

In my discussion with (some non-OSAS) protestants, it has seemed that we have more in common than not, though most of the protestants I have talked with seem to prefer to think that God does not, or does not as the only normal means, dispense graces, particularly the return to the possession of Sanctifying Grace, through sacraments. The protestant who believes in the ability to lose grace through mortal sin (whether he calls it that or not, and in my understanding) would say that God gives the grace to seek forgiveness, and that ordinarily all that is required is an interior act in response to that grace to be restored to sanctifying grace, and hence would dislike the idea of the (normative) requirement of confession of mortal sins.

The Catholic also believes in a possibility to return to a state of grace via interior action (response to grace) through perfect contrition, however we believe that because of the animal part of our dual nature, God acts with us through material outward things as well, and thus for our own good interacts with us through the physical sacraments and the like. (We would say this dual nature and desire to involve both parts of it in our salvation is part of why He incarnated, rather than snapping His fingers and declaring it done.) Thus perfect contrition ordinarily implies the desire and plan to go to confession as soon as possible, since it includes a desire to return in the most perfect way possible to God’s plan - which includes confession. I would hazard that for those who are unaware (disbelieve) in the normative necessity of confession, the requirement of a desire/plan to go to confession does not exist.

I have also been told by some protestants that inner holiness (a gift from God, perhaps or perhaps not received freely) produces outward works, whereas we would say that inner holiness (a freely given, freely received gift of God) enables outer works, which we must cooperate with and do as part of our salvation.

So when we say that works are part of our salvation, we are not (as I understand it) saying that there is some purely human motivated thing we can do without reference to God that will send us to heaven. Rather, we are saying essentially “stand with God and cooperate with His plan to make you holy (which includes works), and you will be made holy and saved. Don’t and you’re damned of your own will.”

 

[Carlan]

Thanks for asking. I am an administrator on a Christian Fellowship Facebook group consisting of both Catholics and Protestants. As you can imagine, we fight like cats and dogs at times because we see things differently. Yet, I think we have common ground since everything seems to flow from the person and work of Christ… which is the source of merit in which God grants us. Aren’t the seven sacraments simply the instrument in which the grace of God flows? Can we say that grace was merited by Christ on our behalf in which Protestants receive by faith and Catholics received by faith through the sacraments?

CU, Turn to Mathhew16,24-27 The Doctrine of the Cross…the answer.
As Catholic Christians we are a sacrament and proclaim God’s message of hope, sacrifice, reconciliation and everlasting life.
We enc ourage each other to accept Eucharist as the Lord.s invitation and the center of our lives.
Sacrament is a formal religious act that is sacred and as a sign of spiritual reality, one
especially believed to have been instituted by Jesus Christ.
The Eucharistic elements -Specif: “The Blessed Sacrament”

Christ you are the fullest revelation of God to men and women.
Lord show us how we can accent to your word with integrity of faith and action.Amen
Peace, Carlan

 

[ltwin]

Salvation by the merit of Christ:

How do Catholics and Protestants understand salvation through the merit of Christ the same way, and what are our differences?

When it comes to salvation, everything is because of Christ. Sin is not just an act, it is a condition–the human condition. We can’t save ourselves from it. Repentance is not a “spark of the divine” that lives within us all. Repentance, the call to repentance, and the response of the sinner to the call to repent is all a provision of the grace of God. Romans 2:24 talks about the kindness of God leads us to repentance. So even our repenting is to due to God’s grace that goes before us preparing and softening our hearts to hear the Word and be convicted by the Holy Spirit.

Repentance is a work of God on the whole person: mind, will, and emotions. So, simply giving mental assent to “repentance” in prayer is not actually repenting. We are called as Christians to live penitential lives and pursue holiness. This too is enabled by sanctifying grace and the power of the Spirit.

We are free moral agents. We can resist God or we can cooperate with Him and allow Him to change us through the Word and the Holy Spirit. But nothing we ourselves can do can save us. Only Christ can.

In my discussion with (some non-OSAS) protestants, it has seemed that we have more in common than not, though most of the protestants I have talked with seem to prefer to think that God does not, or does not as the only normal means, dispense graces, particularly the return to the possession of Sanctifying Grace, through sacraments. The protestant who believes in the ability to lose grace through mortal sin (whether he calls it that or not, and in my understanding) would say that God gives the grace to seek forgiveness, and that ordinarily all that is required is an interior act in response to that grace to be restored to sanctifying grace, and hence would dislike the idea of the (normative) requirement of confession of mortal sins.

Methodists, other Wesleyans,and Pentecostals do not believe in OSAS. I would say that for Pentecostals, we believe that there can be means of grace like prayer, studying the Scriptures, communion, baptism, Spirit-baptism, laying on of hands, foot washing etc. We just don’t elevate sacraments to a more sacred level.

I think for most Protestants overall, the written Word of God is the preeminate channel of grace. It is, along with the Holy Spirit, one of the two agents that lead to repentance.

 

[Protector]

Christian Unity;10363212] Thanks for your answer. In historic Protestantism, I think it is incorrect to say that Protestants believe we are saved by mental assent. I’ve heard other Catholics make that same comment about mental assent regeneration. *** I don’t even believe we are saved by faith + works, or by faith alone. *** I believe faith is simply an instrument in which the grace of God merited by Christ flows to us. Therefore, it is by the merit of Christ that we are saved. Please explain to me what you mean by we must “take up our cross daily” and follow Christ. In what degree must you take up your cross daily and follow Christ because nobody is able to do it perfectly. Does your daily effort to take up your cross and follow Christ merit salvation for you in any degree at all?

Hello Christian Unity, the following two Bible verses put it quite succinctly don’t you think?

***“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:” ***Eph 2:8

***“And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.” ***Luke 9:23

Protector

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Salvation by the merit of Christ:

How do Catholics and Protestants understand salvation through the merit of Christ the same way, and what are our differences?

Well,

1. What do you understand Salvation means?
2. What do you understand by Merit?
3. Since you say “what are our differences” I am left to understand that you consider yourself Protestant. Then that begs the question:

What are you Protesting and against whom?

It is impossible to engage in a reasonable argument without establishing the identity of those things you wish to discuss. As such, since you are the one initiating the dialogue, you must be the one to explain and define what you mean before we fall into demagoguery for lack of understanding what you, the OP, mean by the terms you are using.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Thanks for your answer. In historic Protestantism, I think it is incorrect to say that Protestants believe we are saved by mental assent. I’ve heard other Catholics make that same comment about mental assent regeneration. I don’t even believe we are saved by faith + works, or by faith alone. I believe faith is simply an instrument in which the grace of God merited by Christ flows to us. Therefore, it is by the merit of Christ that we are saved. Please explain to me what you mean by we must “take up our cross daily” and follow Christ. In what degree must you take up your cross daily and follow Christ because nobody is able to do it perfectly. Does your daily effort to take up your cross and follow Christ merit salvation for you in any degree at all?

Is there a need for any reason other than because Christ commands it?

[bibledrb]Matthew 16:24[/bibledrb]

He then follows with

[bibledrb]Matthew 16:25-28[/bibledrb]

What do you think He means by “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works.”?

Other than that we are accountable with what we do? Before and after we have been drawn to Him by the Father. Did we believe? What did we do after we believe? Parable of the talents rings familiar here.

There is a demand, a command here. We have to deny ourselves and carry our cross. However, we don’t carry it alone. We follow Him with it.

[bibledrb]Philippians 4:13[/bibledrb]

Jesus commands it. Who is anyone else to contradict Him?

 

[Christian_Unity]

I think the issue of receiving the belief that salvation by the merit of Christ as being sufficient at the point of conversion and your sole basis of your eternal standing before God, allows you to call on God as your eternal Heavenly Father as an adopted child of God. After-all, the essences of Christianity and the highest privilege of being a Christian is the ability and confidence of calling God your Father.

Sonship is just an amazing truth to receive. It seems strange that when earthly parents adopt a child, it is never conditional upon the obedience and behavior of the adopted child to make that relationship permanent and legal. I don’t think an earthly Father will disown an adopted child when he misbehaves. It seems our view of God as Father is dependent on how we see our standing before our Heavenly Father as an adopted child. It doesn’t seem right to think that we can’t know if our adoption is permanent until the end of our lives. If we believe like that, is God just your temporary Heavenly Father and your adoption is just temporary?

 

[R_C]

Whether Luther was surprised or not, whether Luther "rejected’ the Epistle or not, his teaching is flawed at its core. That’s what the two posts try to summarize.

 

[Patavium]

CU,

You believe you are already saved because Jesus Christ earned the salvation for you, and you accepted this salvation through your faith in him? Does this merit of Jesus Christ allows you to cover your unrighteousness?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I think the issue of receiving the belief that salvation by the merit of Christ as being sufficient at the point of conversion and your sole basis of your eternal standing before God, allows you to call on God as your eternal Heavenly Father as an adopted child of God. After-all, the essences of Christianity and the highest privilege of being a Christian is the ability and confidence of calling God your Father.

Sonship is just an amazing truth to receive. It seems strange that when earthly parents adopt a child, it is never conditional upon the obedience and behavior of the adopted child to make that relationship permanent and legal. I don’t think an earthly Father will disown an adopted child when he misbehaves. It seems our view of God as Father is dependent on how we see our standing before our Heavenly Father as an adopted child. It doesn’t seem right to think that we can’t know if our adoption is permanent until the end of our lives. If we believe like that, is God just your temporary Heavenly Father and your adoption is just temporary?

Nope, your adopted. But you can run away from home, so to speak. Though the two conceptions are equivalent when you get down to it, it is more useful to think of dying, being judged and sent Hell as being shown with clarity who God is and who we are and, having chosen self over God, finding the idea of perfect communion with God in heaven repugnant and sending ourselves to Hell rather than God kicking us out.

In fact, the Orthodox conception of Hell (which I believe is equivalent to ours, if you go deep enough) is that Hell is simply the experience of God while in the state you put yourself in. For the person who has rejected God, who sees themselves as the ultimate good, the presence of God is unbearably painful - whereas for the person who has accepted God, it is joy.

 

[ltwin]

I think the issue of receiving the belief that salvation by the merit of Christ as being sufficient at the point of conversion and your sole basis of your eternal standing before God, allows you to call on God as your eternal Heavenly Father as an adopted child of God. After-all, the essences of Christianity and the highest privilege of being a Christian is the ability and confidence of calling God your Father.

Sonship is just an amazing truth to receive. It seems strange that when earthly parents adopt a child, it is never conditional upon the obedience and behavior of the adopted child to make that relationship permanent and legal. I don’t think an earthly Father will disown an adopted child when he misbehaves. It seems our view of God as Father is dependent on how we see our standing before our Heavenly Father as an adopted child. It doesn’t seem right to think that we can’t know if our adoption is permanent until the end of our lives. If we believe like that, is God just your temporary Heavenly Father and your adoption is just temporary?

I think we have to think more fully about what adoption is and what it means. Like justification, where God declares the sinner righteous solely on the basis of Christ’s atonement, adoption is a judicial act of God. We are numbered among his children and given all the rights and privileges of heirs. While regeneration creates a new inner nature, it does not create a new person. The regenerate’s personal history is still one where they are a child of wrath. Adoption addresses this issue–legally, the believer is withdrawn from the old family with its loyalties and placed in a new family under its loyalties.

Think about this. While God our father will never disown us, we can disown him and cut “family ties” with him. We can cut him out of our lives and choose to construct our own lives and families independently of him. We can seek legal “emancipation” so to speak.

So while adoption should be a source of comfort and security to us who are in Christ, it should also cause us to be thankful that we have a father in heaven who will not leave us orphans and strengthen our dedication, loyalty, love, and appreciation to him. It should not be a source of arrogance or slackness that leads us to think we do not have to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling.”

 

[po18guy]

Sorry brother, I’m not Catholic. Us Protestants only have two sacraments. I’m not trying to limit you to only two sacraments. If you are Catholic, then you defintely have seven sacraments… that’s cool by me.

Rhetorical question. Trace them back in time.

 

[po18guy]

I kind of confused what you are sharing brother. Are you saying you can merit your salvation in some limited degree? What’s neo-Calvinism?

Our cooperation with God’s grace must produce some good. Reference Matthew 25:14-30. We are given gifts by the Holy Spirit. The Master expects us to put them to use for the building up of the Church. That is work - cooperation with God’s graces. Faith is a grace from God - but we see from scripture that faith can be dead without works of charity. NOT the works of the Mosaic law, but the action that love naturally produces. We are called to do something with our faith. If there was no merit in that, why do it? Even witnesssing is a work. If there is no merit in witnessing, why do it?

Neo-Calvinism is the modern doctrines that have diverged from that which Calvin taught. Calvin believed in an authoritative Church, for example.

 

[JonNC]

Whether Luther was surprised or not, whether Luther "rejected’ the Epistle or not, his teaching is flawed at its core. That’s what the two posts try to summarize.

That’s fine. You’re a Catholic, and I wouldn’t expect you to believe otherwise. But your linked posts said things about Luther as fact, and I was simply asking for a source.

Jon

 

[R_C]

That’s fine. You’re a Catholic, and I wouldn’t expect you to believe otherwise. But your linked posts said things about Luther as fact, and I was simply asking for a source.

Jon

Please…it’s not a partisan issue, here. Let’s not act as if it were. We are both under the banners of Christ.

Therefore, having established that, we focus on the theological aspects of the doctrines.

If the doctrine of Luther were better than that of the Church, I would follow it.

However, it is not. It is resting on grossly erroneous ideas.

Now, I am not saying that his impetus to ask for a reform was not motivated - at least to some degree - by good reasons, nor that his arguments and doctrines do not look - at least in appearance - good enough as to convince a large body of people to accept it (especially if presented as the pure restored Chrsitian doctrine against the evil see of Antichrist, which is basically how he came out). After all, many dislike or even hate the Pope without any good reason.

The point is that the way he acted and the things he came up with on his own were simply flawed. And the greatest piece of evidence for this is what happened next: thousands of denominations further changing his own ideas, disregarding the boundaries that he weakly tried to preserve (such as keeping some shadow of confession or a distorted but still real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or even his love and devotion to Our Lady, whom he referred to as Queen of Heaven). And his very formulation of the doctrine of faith alone was probably intended by him to be somewhat more profound and he’d probably be rather angry at people who pass around these cute little pamphlets saying: read this prayer accepting Christ as your Savior and that’s it, you are saved. Even he would be disgusted, in my opinion.

As you read (I hope) the posts and the comparison between the Lutheran distortion of justification and the orthodox Christian understanding of justification, you come to realize that there may be things that need to be understood and explained and perhaps are not easy to agree with within the context of Catholic doctrine, however the basic premises of sola fide is simply no good for the Christian people, and incredibly hurtful for morality.

Ultimately the main reason I reject Luther’s argument is that he is only a man. The Church and her teachings came forth from 15 centuries of apostolic succession, I don’t need a rebellious monk with limited knowledge of theology to tell me that we got it all wrong. If I have to beware even of a miracle-working false Christ, or of a future-telling false prophet, how much more of a rebellious theologian that has wrecked the unity of the Christian people for the centuries to come.

 

[JonNC]

=R_C;10366152]Please…it’s not a partisan issue, here. Let’s not act as if it were. We are both under the banners of Christ.

Therefore, having established that, we focus on the theological aspects of the doctrines.

You still haven’t provided a source, but ok…

If the doctrine of Luther were better than that of the Church, I would follow it.

However, it is not. It is resting on grossly erroneous ideas.

Now, I am not saying that his impetus to ask for a reform was not motivated - at least to some degree - by good reasons, nor that his arguments and doctrines do not look - at least in appearance - good enough as to convince a large body of people to accept it (especially if presented as the pure restored Chrsitian doctrine against the evil see of Antichrist, which is basically how he came out). After all, many dislike or even hate the Pope without any good reason.

It could be said that, in his time, there may have been good reason. I certainly don’t hate the pope. The current one and his recent predecessors haveall been remarkable men of the faith.

The point is that the way he acted and the things he came up with on his own were simply flawed. And the greatest piece of evidence for this is what happened next: thousands of denominations further changing his own ideas, disregarding the boundaries that he weakly tried to preserve (such as keeping some shadow of confession or a distorted but still real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or even his love and devotion to Our Lady, whom he referred to as Queen of Heaven).

Again, the lemming argument. The anabaptists had nothing to do with Luther. Zwingli, the same. Calvin came later, but I’m of the opinion that even he, though I find no benefit in much of his theology, was not a mind-numbed robot who simply followed Luther…but didn’t.
As for weakly trying to preserving, I find nothing weak in his solid stance on the real presence, Absolution, and even that of the Blessed Virgin. One could argue the weakness of his time was in a papacy that drifted so far from moral, and yes, Catholic doctrinal truths so as to create an atmosphere which allowed, even encouraged, the divisions of the various reformation movements.

And his very formulation of the doctrine of faith alone was probably intended by him to be somewhat more profound and he’d probably be rather angry at people who pass around these cute little pamphlets saying: read this prayer accepting Christ as your Savior and that’s it, you are saved. Even he would be disgusted, in my opinion.

He was angry at the radicals of his time, and saved much of his harsh tongue for them. To say that they are the result of him seems historically inaccurate.

As you read (I hope) the posts and the comparison between the Lutheran distortion of justification and the orthodox Christian understanding of justification, you come to realize that there may be things that need to be understood and explained and perhaps are not easy to agree with within the context of Catholic doctrine, however the basic premises of sola fide is simply no good for the Christian people, and incredibly hurtful for morality.

Perhaps the inclusion of modern Catholic thought, as opposed to folks such as Denifle and O’Hare.
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/SOLAFIDE.htm

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

Ultimately the main reason I reject Luther’s argument is that he is only a man. The Church and her teachings came forth from 15 centuries of apostolic succession, I don’t need a rebellious monk with limited knowledge of theology to tell me that we got it all wrong.

Then, frankly, don’t listen to him. But if you are going to post about him, just be accurate, and provide sources for your claims. Doctor Luther was a friar, btw, with an extensive theological education and knowledge of theology.

If I have to beware even of a miracle-working false Christ, or of a future-telling false prophet, how much more of a rebellious theologian that has wrecked the unity of the Christian people for the centuries to come.

Sounds like you’re speaking of Tetzel, or maybe Pope Leo X. But of the greater issue of unity, perhaps the suggestion of more modern Catholic writings about Luther, such as Cardinal Ratzinger, would be in order, and a recognition that we don’t live 500 years ago.

Jon

 

[R_C]

But if you are going to post about him, just be accurate, and provide sources for your claims. Doctor Luther was a friar, btw, with an extensive theological education and knowledge of theology.

Sources are provided at the end of the second post. I rely on the ability of the writers of the Catholic Encyclopedia to write verifiable articles.

Luther was an Augustinian monk. As for his credentials, he received the degree of Doctor in Theology, like many others, and his extensive education and knowledge did not prevent him from developing doctrines that only lead to confusion and divisions, and which the theologians of the Church have extensively shown to be very elaborate and solid, yet ultimately imperfect and against apostolic tradition and Scripture.

P.s: I said “weakly” because, much to his own dismay (I assume) it did not deter many, many other “protestant” communities from simply denying more and more of the orthodox Christian teachings, embracing all sorts of errors under the “protestant” umbrella (although we agree that there are major differences between each doctrine). I do not think that’s what he wanted. Perhaps he intended to provide the correct way to understand the Eucharist or veneration of Our Lady, but those who came later (regardless of whether directly following him or simply inspired by him) came up with their correct way to understand, et cetera.

 

[Protector]

Originally Posted by Christian Unity
I kind of confused what you are sharing brother. Are you saying you can merit your salvation in some limited degree?..

po18guy;10365362]Our cooperation with God’s grace must produce some good. Reference Matthew 25:14-30. We are given gifts by the Holy Spirit. The Master expects us to put them to use for the building up of the Church. That is work - cooperation with God’s graces. Faith is a grace from God - but we see from scripture that faith can be dead without works of charity. NOT the works of the Mosaic law, but the action that love naturally produces. We are called to do something with our faith. If there was no merit in that, why do it? Even witnesssing is a work. If there is no merit in witnessing, why do it?

Very well put po18guy; It’s good that you make it plain that it has to be, “works of charity”. And you have identified that faith comes first, leading to the desire to please God by “works of charity”, because,

“… without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him.” Hebrews 11:6 (D-R).

.
But whereas "faith is a grace from God " it remains dormant if not utilized in the absence of physical evidence. This is illustrated in the following:

“And he (Abram)believed in the LORD; and He counted it to him for righteousness.” Genesis 15:6 (KJV)

(excerpt from Barnes Notes on the whole Bible) “What was there now, then, to call forth Abram’s faith more than at the first promise? There was the reiteration of the promise. There was the withholding of the performance, leaving room for the exercise of pure faith.”

So then, we see that faith without works (of charity) can be dead, but more importantly it becomes apparent from the Scripture that works without faith are unproductive and worse still that they may appear before God as self aggrandizement, and hence in Isaiah we are told, ***

“But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness’s are as filthy rags; ……

” Isaiah 64:6 (KJV)* (all emphasis mine).

Again from Barnes, (excerpt)

“The sense is, that all their prayers, sacrifices, alms, praises, were mingled with pollution, and were worthy only of deep detestation and abhorrence”

I really enjoyed your post to Christian Unity and I look forward to future posts in the same vein.
God Bless!

Protector.

 

[JonNC]

=R_C;10366785]Sources are provided at the end of the second post. I rely on the ability of the writers of the Catholic Encyclopedia to write verifiable articles.

I do, too… for Catholic teaching.

Luther was an Augustinian monk. As for his credentials, he received the degree of Doctor in Theology, like many others, and his extensive education and knowledge did not prevent him from developing doctrines that only lead to confusion and divisions, and which the theologians of the Church have extensively shown to be very elaborate and solid, yet ultimately imperfect and against apostolic tradition and Scripture.

An Augustinian friar, but that’s besides the point. I appreciate you recognize his extensive education and his doctorate now.

P.s: I said “weakly” because, much to his own dismay (I assume) it did not deter many, many other “protestant” communities from simply denying more and more of the orthodox Christian teachings, embracing all sorts of errors under the “protestant” umbrella (although we agree that there are major differences between each doctrine).

then you have to categorize Catholic teaching as weak, also, since they came from Catholicism. OTOH, I don’t, in either case. I believe that other protestant communions are responsible for their own teachings, and not a reflection of Catholicism or Lutheranism.

I do not think that’s what he wanted. Perhaps he intended to provide the correct way to understand the Eucharist or veneration of Our Lady, but those who came later (regardless of whether directly following him or simply inspired by him) came up with their correct way to understand, et cetera.

I totally agree that he was dismayed by the errors of Zwingli, Calvin, and the rest. If they had been inspired by hm, they would have become Evangelicals, of the Augsburg Confession.
That they didn’t is their responsibility, as much as it is theirs that they didn’t remain Catholic.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

Salvation by the merit of Christ:

How do Catholics and Protestants understand salvation through the merit of Christ the same way, and what are our differences?

There you are CU! You started a bunch of threads, then disappeared onto your facebook page.

I think there are some areas that are similar, but if you start a thread like this, it makes most sense if you open by describing your conception of the topic. Most Catholics have not had extensive training in Reformed theology so really will not have any concept of the differences.

Thanks for your answer. In historic Protestantism, I think it is incorrect to say that Protestants believe we are saved by mental assent. I’ve heard other Catholics make that same comment about mental assent regeneration. I don’t even believe we are saved by faith + works, or by faith alone. ** I believe faith is simply an instrument in which the grace of God merited by Christ flows to us. **Therefore, it is by the merit of Christ that we are saved. Please explain to me what you mean by we must “take up our cross daily” and follow Christ. In what degree must you take up your cross daily and follow Christ because nobody is able to do it perfectly. Does your daily effort to take up your cross and follow Christ merit salvation for you in any degree at all?

I think you hit this nail on the head. Human beings are created with an innate faculty that enables us to have faith. Unless our faith is kindled by His grace, then we put our faith in things of the world (power, money, desires of the flesh). This is why the idea that we are saved by "faith alone’ rings hollow to Catholics. We know that this faculty of faith must be united and respond to grace, which is what saves us.

Our daily effort to take up our cross and carry it is the obedience of faith.

Rom 16:26
…the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith

If we believe in Him, we will follow HIs commandments:

John 14:15
“If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”

Yet we cannot do this by our own will or ability, but only by His grace. Without Him, we can do nothing, and the fruit of obedience can only occur if we cling strongly to the Vine.

John 15:5-7
Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing. 6 Whoever does not abide in me is thrown away like a branch and withers; such branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.

The daily obedience to the commandments and the carrying of the cross is the fruit of the Spirit, and is the working out of what is at work within us.

Phil 2:12-13
" work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure."

We “merit” in the sense that we become worthy of His sacrifice. We are transformed from one glory into another daily, so that there is more of Him, and less of us. He increases, as we decrease. We are made holy by His grace at work within us.