Salvation requirements

[Angainor]

Sure. She also had no sins, of course. But you knew that.

I should think so. Washed away by the blood of Christ.

That is the gift offered to all.

 

[jmcrae]

I should think so. Washed away by the blood of Christ.

That is the gift offered to all.

Did you know that some people believe and teach that God actually tries to deceive Himself, and merely covers over our sins, without actually washing them away?

I’m glad you’re not one of those!!

 

[Angainor]

Did you know that some people believe and teach that God actually tries to deceive Himself, and merely covers over our sins, without actually washing them away?

I’m glad you’re not one of those!!

I am not inclined to reply to sarcastic jabs, but I feel I must, else a casual observer might mistakenly think you somehow scored a witty debate point.

From the Lutheran Confessional documents:

75] We think that even the adversaries* acknowledge that, in justification, the remission of sins is necessary first. For we all are under sin. Wherefore we reason thus:—
76] To attain the remission of sins is to be justified, according to Psalm 32:1: Blessed 77]is he whose transgression is forgiven. By faith alone in Christ, not through love, not because of love or works, do we acquire the remission of sins, although love follows faith. 78]Therefore by faith alone we are justified, understanding justification as the making of a righteous man out of an unrighteous, or that he be regenerated.
*Background: “Adversaries” describes the representatives from Rome to the Diet of Augsburg.

 

[RobNY]

Scandalous? You will have to explain that. I sense you were being sarcastic somehow.

I was trying to joke jovially about the position-- saying that it (grace) was undeserved and freely bestowed, which according to some anti-Catholics we don’t teach, was, “scandalous” to hear from a Catholic, and we all know they teach works-righteousness.

Most agreed (about the Catholic part)! It is pure gospel! The priest should have left out the word “mortal” however. It a wholly unnecessary addition.

Not at all. She* had* sinned, and she recounts one of her sins early in the book. By the grace of God it is such a trifling sin, and with her I wonder at the grace God gives in different amounts to different people. But it was sin nonetheless.

"I declare that you have never committed a

-]mortal/-] sin."

With all due respect, it is perfectly in keeping with the language of first John to speak of our, “brother” (i.e., our fellow Christian) as sinning, whether as, “deadly sin” or, “sin that is not deadly.” For he is both clear that it is altogether possible that we may see our brother sinning, and also that it is possible that our brother may partake of, ‘deadly sin’ [and the word deadly is equivalent to mortal, of course] (cf. 1 John 5:16-17).

I am not inclined to reply to sarcastic jabs, but I feel I must, else a casual observer might mistakenly think you somehow scored a witty debate point.

From the Lutheran Confessional documents:75] We think that even the adversaries* acknowledge that, in justification, the remission of sins is necessary first. For we all are under sin. Wherefore we reason thus:—
76] To attain the remission of sins is to be justified, according to Psalm 32:1: Blessed 77]is he whose transgression is forgiven. By faith alone in Christ, not through love, not because of love or works, do we acquire the remission of sins, although love follows faith. 78]Therefore by faith alone we are justified, understanding justification as the making of a righteous man out of an unrighteous, or that he be regenerated.
*Background: “Adversaries” describes the representatives from Rome to the Diet of Augsburg.

Well, I don’t think this is quite what he is saying. In Catholic terminology there is both, “remission of sins” and, “interior renovation.” As Trent affirms, “Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man” (see sixth session). The reformers were quite happy about, “the remission of sins,” but denied that justification effected, “the sanctification and renewal of the inward man.” As Paul himself testifies, the effect of justification is indeed “renewal by the holy Spirit,” (via the, “bath of rebirth”) contra the position of the reformers (Titus 3:5). Or as Paul says again, referring to baptism (as indeed the word for, “washed” must), “but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11). (And indeed Paul’s placement of, “sanctification” before “justification” is a strange thing when viewed from the Protestant theological order).

If one looks at the entire sentence from Trent:

Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the 1. sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend,** 2. **that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.

One can see it quite clearly parallels Paul’s own teaching (Titus 3:5-7):

not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, 1. he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit, whom he richly poured out on us through Jesus Christ our savior, so that we might be 2. justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.

I think what jmcrae is protesting is the idea that God forgives our sins without also renewing us inwardly-- that somehow we become, “just” without being inwardly just, but merely from a remission of sins. In other words, he is critiquing imputed righteousness.

-Rob

 

[jmcrae]

I am not inclined to reply to sarcastic jabs, but I feel I must, else a casual observer might mistakenly think you somehow scored a witty debate point.

It was not intended as a sarcastic jab. (I think I must be a very simple-minded person, because it never even occurred to me that you might take it that way.)

I really was glad to see that you had (apparently) never heard of the “snow-covered dung-hill.” I had wanted to keep it that way, because I didn’t want you to fall into the error of thinking that a sinner can get to Heaven. We must be actually perfect, in order to get to Heaven. Jesus, through grace (which we Catholics receive from Christ in the Sacraments of the Catholic Church) makes us actually perfect. He does not merely pretend to Himself that we are perfect - we actually become so, by His grace.

I’m sad that you think I was being sarcastic.

 

[RobNY]

It was not intended as a sarcastic jab. (I think I must be a very simple-minded person, because it never even occurred to me that you might take it that way.)

I really was glad to see that you had (apparently) never heard of the “snow-covered dung-hill.” I had wanted to keep it that way, because I didn’t want you to fall into the error of thinking that a sinner can get to Heaven. We must be actually perfect, in order to get to Heaven. Jesus, through grace (which we Catholics receive from Christ in the Sacraments of the Catholic Church) makes us actually perfect. He does not merely pretend to Himself that we are perfect - we actually become so, by His grace.

I’m sad that you think I was being sarcastic.

Angainor does hold to the Lutheran formulation, “simul justus et peccator.” In fact, we’re discussing this in another thread.

-Rob

 

[Angainor]

Not at all. She* had* sinned, and she recounts one of her sins early in the book.

I have little doubt she had sinned, but she confessed! Wasn’t the priest absolving her when he said, “I declare that you have never committed a -]mortal/-] sin”? If not, why didn’t he? By the grace of God, priests can declare any sinner free from all sin. “I declare that you have never committed a sin” is a little stronger language than normal, but perfectly apt.

If one looks at the entire sentence from Trent:
One can see it quite clearly parallels Paul’s own teaching (Titus 3:5-7):I don’t know why the boys at Trent thought they could improve upon Paul in Titus by adding phrases like “voluntary reception” and “inward man”.

I think what jmcrae is protesting is the idea that God forgives our sins without also renewing us inwardly-- that somehow we become, “just” without being inwardly just, but merely from a remission of sins.

I will let the text speak for itself, (but I cannot resist the temptation to bold parts): Romans 7 (ESV)
13Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. 15I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

21So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

 

[Angainor]

I’m sad that you think I was being sarcastic.

Sorry. I knew what you were talking about. I guess because you danced around the issue of “dung-hills” without mentioning them I jumped to the wrong conclusion you were trying to get in some kind of cheap-shot.

“Snow-covered dung-hill” is not the most accurate description. It is not in the actual Lutheran confessions.

If you want to get the idea that I think “snow-covered dun-hill” was trying to get across, read [post=2359589]Romans 7 beginning at verse 13[/post] and we can talk again.

 

[Delphinus85]

“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life, and he that believeth not the son, shall not see life: but the wrath of God abideth on him.” John 3:36
“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life” John 5:24.
“Most assuredly I say to you he who believes in Me has eternal life.” John 6:47
“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 6:23.

We are saved by grace through faith, and not of works, lest any man boast. I feel confident that these scriptures are true, and I am saved by believing in Jesus Christ, and His work on the cross. It is a gift from God. I am a sinner and I accept Jesus Christ as my saviour.

I realize that this is only the beginning of my new life as a Christian, but I would like to know what other Christians feel is necessary for them to be saved. I’m not really interested in opinions, but would prefer Biblical backing substantianting your responses. Please try and stay on track, and tell us what is necessary for salvation [alone].

God Bless,
Robert
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Eph. 5:20-21 “Test all things, hold fast what is good.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Don’t forget James 2:24 “24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.”

'nuff said

 

[RobNY]

I have little doubt she had sinned, but she confessed! Wasn’t the priest absolving her when he said, “I declare that you have never committed a -]mortal/-] sin”? If not, why didn’t he? By the grace of God, priests can declare any sinner free from all sin. “I declare that you have never committed a sin” is a little stronger language than normal, but perfectly apt.
Wouldn’t that be rewriting history? She had sinned but she also had been forgiven. It’s not as if she never sinned. She *had *and she also received forgiveness.

I don’t know why the boys at Trent thought they could improve upon Paul in Titus by adding phrases like “voluntary reception” and “inward man”.I will let the text speak for itself, (but I cannot resist the temptation to bold

 

[Angainor]

Wouldn’t that be rewriting history? She had sinned but she also had been forgiven. It’s not as if she never sinned. She *had *and she also received forgiveness.

Yes it is as if she never sinned. I wish I knew my Bible better. I’d be willing to bet there’s at least a Psalm somewhere to that effect.

It has to be as if she never sinned. Jesus is very clear that lawbreakers aren’t allowed into heaven.

It is far more biblical than Luther’s image that man is the horse, and either the devil or the God is riding. How inappropriate to the dignity of man!

You are judging a doctrine to the rule and norm of human reason. It insults the dignity of man! So sorry about that.

With all due respect, when I read Scripture I see Catholic doctrine. Besides, if Scripture speaks for itself, why are you, “improving” on it by bolding certain sections? I am altogether unclear what your argument against me (or the Church) is. Please explicitly frame your own argument. By all means use Scripture, but don’t expect me to read Lutheranism into Scripture unless you show me exactly how it is so. I honestly don’t know what argument you are trying to make, and I cannot respond to you unless you say so explicitly.

The context was the state of a man that is regenerated at baptism and his state of being “internally just” and whatnot. I thought that passage would describe a regenerated man better than anything I could describe. If you think a regenerated man who is inwardly just can also inhabit a “body of death”, lack “the ability to carry out what is right” and “have sin dwelling within him” then I guess we are on the same page.

 

[Angainor]

Voluntary reception means exactly this-- that man cooperates with God in justification, the God who first loved him and drew him in, because either man cooperates with grace freely given, or rejects it.

I once heard an analogy.

God is the father who sets the dinner table for his children. Would you call it cooperation when a child sits down and eats instead of going to his room and starving to death?

Hat tip: The Fearsome Pirate.

 

[RobNY]

Yes it is as if she never sinned. I wish I knew my Bible better. I’d be willing to bet there’s at least a Psalm somewhere to that effect.

Indeed, when we are forgiven of our sin, it is as if we had never sinned, but remember it is still, “as if,” not actually the case that we never sinned.

It has to be as if she never sinned. Jesus is very clear that lawbreakers aren’t allowed into heaven.You are judging a doctrine to the rule and norm of human reason. It insults the dignity of man! So sorry about that.

Indeed… as if. Be ye perfect as your father in heaven is perfect (Matthew’s Gospel). Nothing impure shall enter (the book of Revelation). I quite agree with that… in fact, perfection is the reason why I must reject simul justus et peccator because someone who is counted just but in reality unjust-- ontologically so-- could not enter heaven.

Besides, the fulfillment of the entire law is love. It is by the infusion of charity into our hearts that we love God and neighbor as we ought, and thereby fulfill the entire law.

The context was the state of a man that is regenerated at baptism and his state of being “internally just” and whatnot.

It is an ontological state-- the soul is filled with grace, sanctifying grace. It does not mean that man has lost tendencies to sin. A state of grace is a state where 1. man has been forgiven of sin, and 2. his soul is united to God with sanctifying grace.

I thought that passage would describe a regenerated man better than anything I could describe. If you think a regenerated man who is inwardly just can also inhabit a “body of death”, lack “the ability to carry out what is right” and “have sin dwelling within him” then I guess we are on the same page.

We still die. Our bodies are still, “bodies of death,” even after regeneration. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. Baptism remits original sin, but it does not give us the special praeternatural graces given to our first parents. Hence, we have mortal bodies, and our sensual appetite is not perfectly subordinated to our rational faculties (concupiscence).

The problem is the identification that the Reformers make of concupiscence with sin, in the proper sense.

It, of course, is not sin in the proper sense. Sin must be chosen. Sin is the result of a free act of the will. Since concupiscence is not chosen, it is not sin in the proper sense. It is called sin inasmuch as it was caused by sin, and incites one to sin.

St. Augustine speaks on the issue as such,

“As arising from sin,” he explained, “it is called sin, although in the regenerate it is not actually sin. It has this name applied to it just as speech which the tongue produces is itself called tongue, and just as the word ‘hand’ is used in the sense of writing which the hand produces” *De *Nuptiis et Concupiscentia, 1:23-25. (quoted in Fr. Hardon’s article.)

To call concupiscence sin in the strict sense would be abhorrent, because it is not freely chosen.

It can be resisted, though, and mortified, although not completely, in this life, by the helping of the abundant grace which Christ offers us. Who, then, will deliever me from this body of death? Jesus Christ!

No matter how strongly I am tempted by my disordered body, Jesus Christ offers me grace enough to overcome sin.

The man is regenerated because his soul is united with God, “the love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the holy Spirit that has been given to us” (Rom 5:5). And he remains just, ontologically, as long as his soul is united with God-- no matter how great temptations. It is only when consent is joined with concupiscence that it is sin in the proper sense-- only then that he could be deprived of grace. One is not unjust by reason of concupiscence, one is unjust by reason of free consent. So, to be regenerated and still have concupiscence is no contradiction, because to have concupiscence is not to be unjust.

The problem is trying to shove salvation into a one-time event, when it is not only an event that begins at one time, but also a process which culminates in salvation-- I was saved in the waters of my baptism, I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling now, and I will be saved (hopefully) when I am judged by Jesus Christ at the end.

 

[RobNY]

The process includes fighting against, ‘the flesh’ and subduing it, putting on the new man entirely, increasing in justification with God. “All of us, gazing with unveiled face on the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, as from the Lord who is the Spirit.” (2 Cor 3:18). Amen! I pray the Lord continues to conform me to His image, more and more.

I once heard an analogy.

God is the father who sets the dinner table for his children. Would you call it cooperation when a child sits down and eats instead of going to his room and starving to death?

Freedom doesn’t mean not having consequences. We are free. We will have to live with the consequences of our choices for eternity.

I’d say you’re operating on a too modern definition of freedom. Freedom is more classicaly thought of as the ability to do what fulfills your nature. That is why we become marvellously free in Christ, because we become most fully what we are-- most fully human– by God’s grace.

-Rob

 

[Angainor]

The problem is the identification that the Reformers make of concupiscence with sin, in the proper sense.

It, of course, is not sin in the proper sense. Sin must be chosen. Sin is the result of a free act of the will. Since concupiscence is not chosen, it is not sin in the proper sense. It is called sin inasmuch as it was caused by sin, and incites one to sin.

Where does this idea come from that sin must be chosen and the result of a free act of the will? Can you really say that a being with concupiscence is obeying the first commandment?

As you said earlier in Revelation, nothing impure may enter. Is a being with concupiscence pure? Can a being with concupiscence enter? If a being with concupiscence can’t enter he isn’t pure. He is sinful. What would happen when a being with concupiscence gets in? I imagine, having the tendency to transgress, he would transgress.

To call concupiscence sin in the strict sense would be abhorrent, because it is not freely chosen.

Abhorrent, eh? That is a subjective term. You are appealing to human reason as the rule and norm of doctrine.
Anyway, it isn’t abhorrent at all when you consider God isn’t letting people with concupiscence hang out to dry. He offers salvation as a free gift! God says “come, enter my house”.

I’d say you’re operating on a too modern definition of freedom. Freedom is more classicaly thought of as the ability to do what fulfills your nature.

What do I care what freedom is “more classically” thought of as? Sounds Greek to me. A big load of Greek philosophical bologna, to be exact.

 

[guanophore]

“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life, and he that believeth not the son, shall not see life: but the wrath of God abideth on him.” John 3:36
“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life” John 5:24.
“Most assuredly I say to you he who believes in Me has eternal life.” John 6:47
“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 6:23.

We are saved by grace through faith, and not of works, lest any man boast. I feel confident that these scriptures are true, and I am saved by believing in Jesus Christ, and His work on the cross. It is a gift from God. I am a sinner and I accept Jesus Christ as my saviour.

I realize that this is only the beginning of my new life as a Christian, but I would like to know what other Christians feel is necessary for them to be saved. I’m not really interested in opinions, but would prefer Biblical backing substantianting your responses. Please try and stay on track, and tell us what is necessary for salvation [alone].

God Bless,
Robert
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Eph. 5:20-21 “Test all things, hold fast what is good.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

One that thinks he is saved will provide for his family.

1 Tim 5:8
8 If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."

Does doing so save him?

Can a woman be saved by having children?

1 Tim 2:15
15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty."

Those who are blessed with a womb just need to keep makin’ them babies!

 

[RobNY]

Anyway, it isn’t abhorrent at all when you consider God isn’t letting people with concupiscence hang out to dry. He offers salvation as a free gift! God says “come, enter my house”. What do I care what freedom is “more classically” thought of as? Sounds Greek to me. A big load of Greek philosophical bologna, to be exact.

Dear Angainor,

Concupiscence is not a sin. If it really did form an obstacle to obeying the first commandment, then no one would obey it. Our God does not give us commandments which cannot be obeyed.

Concupiscence will not exist in heaven. It is an imperfection which will not exist in heaven. I can’t imagine that a being with concupiscence could possibly be in heaven. It seems to be that prior to the Last Judgment all souls in heaven will be without bodies, and thus without concupiscence. It seems to me that after the Last Judgment all those in heaven will have glorified bodies, and thus be free of concupiscence.

Concupiscence will be absent from souls prior to the Judgment just as mortality is absent from these souls, due to lack of bodies, and it will be absent from beings after the Judgment just as morality is absent from these beings because their bodies are glorified.

As you can see-- neither is mortality sinful, in fact, it parallels very well with concupiscence, and shows just how it isn’t sin. Not everything that will be gotten rid of before we get into heaven will be sin (in the proper sense). Mortality, while not sinful in itself, like concupiscence is caused by sin. And although I’m not sure how this would be, it would be interesting to see if anyone thinks mortality, like concupiscence leads to/incites to sin (then the analogy would be perfect). And neither is, “purified” away either (as by a process)-- they are just incompatible with the state of affairs in heaven. Trying to think of concupiscence or mortality being purified seems to me to be like trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

In case we’re on different pages-- this might help you get a better idea of what I mean when I use the term concupiscence.

I think we need to discuss what exactly sin is, and what it isn’t. I would appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. What do you think sin is? What are the conditions for sinning? Where do you get your idea on what sin is from?

As for me, I literally just came upon a passage written by St. Justin Martyr which explains it rather well. See The Second Apology of Justin, Chapter VII.

But neither do we affirm that it is by fate that men do what they do, or suffer what they suffer, but that each man by free choice acts rightly or sins… The Stoics, not observing this, maintained that all things take place according tot he necessity of fate. But since God in the beginning made the race of angels and men with free-will, they will justly suffer in eternal fire the punishment of whatever sins they have committed. And this is the nature of all that is made, to be capable of vice and virtue. For neither would any of them be praiseworthy unless there were power to turn to both [vice and virtue]. And this is also shown by men everywhere who have made laws and philosophized according to right reason, by their prescribing to do some things and refrain from others.

If you have a differing view of sin, I’d love to hear it, but I think it only fair for you to put it forward so we can subject it to the test.

As regards philosophy-- perhaps it all is bologna. But, the problem is, if we want to have a discussion of something like, “freedom” we must first have an idea of what freedom is-- and by then we’re already philosophizing. What do you think freedom is? Please do answer-- if you don’t, then I’m afraid that your analogy of God and the child with freedom means nothing, or at least is useless, because then you’re offering an argument and completely unwilling to defend it.

My view of freedom is not incompatible with that for a few reasons-- first is that I’ve never thought of freedom as something which excludes consequences, and second that something done freely fulfills what we are.

-Rob

 

[Angainor]

Concupiscence will not exist in heaven. It is an imperfection which will not exist in heaven. I can’t imagine that a being with concupiscence could possibly be in heaven.

I agree with that. I think you would agree that a man, even if he managed to somehow go through life without what you would call a transgression against the Law, but had concupiscence, would not be allowed entry into heaven as-is. Can’t we agree that it is concupiscence itself that bars him from heaven. As you say, it is unimaginable that a being with concupiscence could possibly be in heaven.

This is what Jesus was talking about when he said “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.” We are sick, and concupiscence is our illness. Transgressions against the Law are the symptoms that point to our fundamental unfitness for heaven. “if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin.” Romans 7:7

It seems to me that after the Last Judgment all those in heaven will have glorified bodies, and thus be free of concupiscence.

It seems to me, too! If I may say so, you say that with astonishing air of matter-of-factness. We were sick with a disease that makes us unfit for heavenly citizenship, but at the Resurrection, we will be remade with glorified bodies, free from that disease.

How this came to be is the fulfillment of all the old testament promises. It is the answer to the Psalmist’s prayer, “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.”

It is the sum total of God’s glorious plan for man’s restoration. His Son became a man, died, and he himself rose glorified, that we may follow after. “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.” Romans 5:18

It is God’s plan that he offers this restoration as a free gift. The gift of faith and the sacraments are the revealed means by which God works this restoration. “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” Romans 6:4

Faith and baptism justify the person in this life, even though the sinful nature remains. The justified person then waits in anticipation of the time that his nature will then also be renewed.

The Father has set the table with faith and the sacraments that lead to everlasting life. I still say that the child can sit, eat, and be restored, or go to his room and starve.

 

[Angainor]

What do you think freedom is? Please do answer-- if you don’t, then I’m afraid that your analogy of God and the child with freedom means nothing, or at least is useless, because then you’re offering an argument and completely unwilling to defend it.

My view of freedom is not incompatible with that for a few reasons-- first is that I’ve never thought of freedom as something which excludes consequences, and second that something done freely fulfills what we are.

Before one contemplates freedom, I think it is useful to consider slavery.
15What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.

20When you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? The end of those things is death. 22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. 23For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6

 

[RobNY]

I agree with that. I think you would agree that a man, even if he managed to somehow go through life without what you would call a transgression against the Law, but had concupiscence, would not be allowed entry into heaven as-is. Can’t we agree that it is concupiscence itself that bars him from heaven. As you say, it is unimaginable that a being with concupiscence could possibly be in heaven.

It is sin itself that bars man from heaven, otherwise God would damn us for having concupiscence, as he does for those who die in sin.

This is what Jesus was talking about when he said “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.” We are sick, and concupiscence is our illness. Transgressions against the Law are the symptoms that point to our fundamental unfitness for heaven. “if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin.” Romans 7:7

I think we are sick and sin is our illness. Of course, I’d be ok with taking a slightly broader view and seeing fallen human nature as our illness, which would comprise our fallen state (mortality and concupiscence) as well as sinfulness. But I wouldn’t be ok with saying concupiscence is our illness so as to mean only it is our illness. The Divine Physician came also to forgive sin. Hence, saying, ‘I have come not for the righteous but for sinners.’ Likewise for Paul’s argument, which seems to be that the Law reveals sin because we transgress its many requirements, but not an attack on concupiscence alone.

It seems to me, too! If I may say so, you say that with astonishing air of matter-of-factness. We were sick with a disease that makes us unfit for heavenly citizenship, but at the Resurrection, we will be remade with glorified bodies, free from that disease.

Perhaps we’re thinking of this in different ways. When I think of things that bar us from heaven, I think of sin. And I think of it in this way: if we die in a state of sin God bars us from heaven, and we are damned eternally. However, if we die as mortals, or with concupiscence (as indeed we all do), we are not barred from heaven. Hence, mortality and concupiscence do not bar us from heavenly citizenship. They are, however, done away with in the new order when creation is remade gloriously.

How this came to be is the fulfillment of all the old testament promises. It is the answer to the Psalmist’s prayer, “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.”

It seems to me that God did just this to David after his repentance, and does exactly this to us after our baptism, or subsequently, after we repent from post-baptismal sin. I don’t see the direct connection with the glorified bodies. If anything it is more evidence that God renews us inwardly by infusing his grace, and not merely by imputation.

Faith and baptism justify the person in this life, even though the sinful nature remains. The justified person then waits in anticipation of the time that his nature will then also be renewed.

Perhaps we need to be clearer what we mean by, “the sinful nature” remains. The fallen nature remains, I would certainly agree. But, man is a sinner no more once forgiven by God, nor is his weakened nature a cause of condemnation before God. If man remains sinful once forgiven by God, then God is a liar. He certainly is inclined to sin in his weakened body, but inclination is not sin itself. Besides, God gives us every grace to overcome that inclination.

The Father has set the table with faith and the sacraments that lead to everlasting life. I still say that the child can sit, eat, and be restored, or go to his room and starve.

This is true, but that is exactly in what his freedom consists.

Before one contemplates freedom, I think it is useful to consider slavery.

Indeed. It is helpful, and Paul’s passage is a very good one. Would you like to discuss freedom now?

-Rob