Salvation

[Chris_W]

Kevan:

And if it was not when I was baptized, you mean to imply that it does not make good sense and I did not pass from death to life?

No, that is not what I mean to imply. Baptism happens as an infant for many people. I merely mean to point out that I give credence to the experience described by many. If this experience happens later in life, (having been baptized some time earlier), then I would call this the time of conversion. The newness of life occurs at baptism though. It is through Baptism that we become a child of God. The latter experience is when the person begins to live according to that newness of life.

Kevan:

Among the “many people” who describe it so, remember to include the writers of Scripture, who state precisely that again and again. Vast multitudes undergo baptism and have no changed life.

.

Agreed, if it happened at childhood. At adult Baptism it stands to reason the person has made a decision for Christ and therefore would have a changed way of living.

Kevan:

The resulting sense of inner emptiness draws people to churches where the new birth is real

.

What you mean by this statement? Christian baptism ALWAYS causes newness of life. It is the infusion of sanctifying grace, when the person if born of God. New birth is always real with Christian baptism. A decision to live according to the Word of God comes at/after the age of reason, and in a sense this is newness of life, in that the person may turn over a new leaf, but the reality is that a new life begins at baptism.

Kevan:

Living is a process; coming to life is instantaneous. Without the new birth, all the “process” is just going through the motions.

Agreed. Coming to new life is instantaneous…through Baptism.

Where we seem to be coming from different viewpoints, is in making the statement “I have been saved.” In the sense that I received newness of life at the time of baptism, I can say I was saved at that point and time. If I never committed personal sins from that point on (esp. grievous or “mortal” sins) that would have been the singular point in time of my salvation. But that is not the case, so I would need to clarify that I am continuing to work out my salvation in the present as well.

I was saved, then put my salvation in jeopardy, then regained it, then put myself at risk again, then confessed my sins and regained sanctifying grace, and so on. Coming to life was instantaneous, but the process of maintaining that new life continues.

 

[Fidelis]

Kevan:

I wonder why this keeps coming up. I stated clearly in post #13 above that the idea of once saved, always saved is not intrinsic to the Protestant view of salvation. Yet members keep posting arguments against that idea.

I suspect it’s because that is the way that most of us Catholics hear it from Protestants themselves. There are undoubtably exceptions such as the church you attend, but for the most part–be it from radio or TV preachers, well-intentioned proselytizers, or our own friends and relatives who have left the Faith and are trying to “save” us, this is how we most commonly hear it.

 

[Kevan]

Kevan:

The resulting sense of inner emptiness draws people to churches where the new birth is real.

Chris W:

What you mean by this statement? Christian baptism ALWAYS causes newness of life. It is the infusion of sanctifying grace, when the person if born of God. New birth is always real with Christian baptism.

You have clarified a key difference between the Catholic and Evangelical positions. I would maintain that many people go through the motions of baptism without experiencing the new birth, even as many go through the Evangelical ritual (walk the aisle, say the sinner’s prayer, etc.) without experiencing the new birth.

Regeneration doesn’t make one flawless, but neither does it leave him as he was. It is a supernatural revolution in the inner being. “Old things have passed away, all things have become new” (2 Cor. 5:17).

Without this, trying to live the Christian life is like trying to set fire to wet wood. That’s where the “inner emptiness” that I referred to comes from.

 

[Kevan]

Fidelis:

There are undoubtably exceptions such as the church you attend, but for the most part–be it from radio or TV preachers, well-intentioned proselytizers, or our own friends and relatives who have left the Faith and are trying to “save” us, this is how we most commonly hear it.

As I said above, most Evangelicals probably do not believe “once saved, always saved.” For the record, the church I attend does believe it, contrary to your guess (although that says nothing about any individual member’s belief). But I readily accept that most of those who are concerned about your soul happen to believe in OSAS. Knowing the neighborhood, I’d expect that to be the case.

I mentioned it because, instead of addressing the topic I had addressed, responders were attacking a doctrine I had specifically excluded from my topic.

 

[Pax]

I would take Ontario’s advice and read James Akin’s book, The Salvation Controversy. Also go to jamesakin.com, catholic.com, and ic.net/~erasmus/RAZHOME.HTM for tracts and discussions on salvation.

Catholic teaching on salvation embraces all of scripture in a way not found in Protestant theology. You might get a good feel for this from some of the things mentioned in this thread. Also read other existing threads on these boards. You might find them very helpful.

 

[Chris_W]

Kevan:

You have clarified a key difference between the Catholic and Evangelical positions. I would maintain that many people go through the motions of baptism without experiencing the new birth, even as many go through the Evangelical ritual (walk the aisle, say the sinner’s prayer, etc.) without experiencing the new birth.

Regeneration doesn’t make one flawless, but neither does it leave him as he was. It is a supernatural revolution in the inner being. “Old things have passed away, all things have become new” (2 Cor. 5:17).

Without this, trying to live the Christian life is like trying to set fire to wet wood. That’s where the “inner emptiness” that I referred to comes from.

I am still a bit unsure about something. You describe going through the motions of Baptism without experiencing new birth.

I guess I look at Baptism (especially before the age of reason) as a functional sacrament. What I mean is that something takes place as a result of the sacrament, regardless of whether or not the infant (for example) experiences anything. That something is the birth of a new divine life within that person, thus making them a child of God. True, a person baptized after the age of reason should indeed experience a newness of life, but I would attribute that experience to the conversion that accompanied the baptism. I say this because that experience can also take place long after baptism, when the person makes the decision for Christ and to live the Christian life (the time of conversion). I Hope that makes sense.

I agree though with the rest of what you said. Not that I assume you are looking for my agreement, but I am saying I think your statements agree with Catholic teaching. We both recognize the necessity of regeneration through Baptism, and the emptiness of life (including good works) without it.

 

[Kevan]

Chris W:

True, a person baptized after the age of reason should indeed experience a newness of life, but I would attribute that experience to the conversion that accompanied the baptism. I say this because that experience can also take place long after baptism, when the person makes the decision for Christ and to live the Christian life (the time of conversion).

It seems that you interpret conversion as something the convert does, rather than something that God does to the convert. Although the terminology isn’t crucial for this conversation, the underlying idea is.

I would firmly disagree with the idea that baptism automatically imparts the new birth. The two are closely associated in Scripture, but they cannot be the same thing for two reasons: (1) some people are regenerated before baptism (Acts 10:47) and (2) plenty of people approach the water of baptism as dry heathen and leave it as wet ones. The new birth is a spiritual event that changes the life. Those without that change have yet to experience the new birth.

We both recognize the necessity of regeneration through Baptism, and the emptiness of life (including good works) without it.

I fear that when “baptism” is left in the mix, the focus goes badly awry. Many people have never passed from death to life, yet they believe that they have because they’ve been baptized. Their experience is not what the New Testament describes as Christianity, but resembles more what St. Paul said in Eph. 2: “Dead in trespasses and sins. In which you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air…fulfilling the lusts of the flesh and of the mind.”

 

[Philthy]

ahimsaman72:

blues, I would simply recommend you take your time with this. If you are like me, I dive into something, read everything there is and still don’t know what I think. Too many concepts, so little time. I will leave it up to the Catholics here to explain the Catholic side, as I am a baptist. There are many flavors (thinking of ice cream here) of protestants. But, we all basically adhere to one of three systems of salvation: calvinism, ariminianism or universalism.
I was going to begin to start RCIA this fall but admit that I wasn’t ready to do so for various reasons.

I think it’s important to take some inventory spiritually. Where am I at in my spiritual life? Do I have a “spiritual life”? What do I believe? Why do I believe what I do? Start with basics. Work your way from there. I wouldn’t lead you in any certain direction. If you want to find Jesus Christ, you will find Him. Or, He will find you is more like it.

Some good advice here. When you know enough to know that you don’t know it all and never will, you’ll begin to appreciate why Jesus founded a Church for us to turn to.

Catholic Salvation in a nutshell:

Salvation is initiated by God’s grace through Jesus’ atonement and communicated through the sacrament (visible sign instituted by Christ which communicates Grace) of Baptism. We must choose to continue to cooperate with this Grace through Faith by Love and by avoiding sin. When we fail - which is usually! - God offers us forgiveness through the sacrament of reconciliation. To spiritually strengthen us during our journey He communicates with us through prayer and gives us Himself in the Eucharist.

 

[Chris_W]

Kevan:

It seems that you interpret conversion as something the convert does, rather than something that God does to the convert. Although the terminology isn’t crucial for this conversation, the underlying idea is…

The conversion is indeed something the convert does, for if God did it to a person, that person wouldn’t really be making a decision about the matter would he? Of course I recognize that only God can lead a person to conversion, but the person does play an active role in converting.

Kevan:

I would firmly disagree with the idea that baptism automatically imparts the new birth. The two are closely associated in Scripture, but they cannot be the same thing…

A bit on confusion here I think: It depends on what you mean by new birth. Baptism does impart new life, but this is a different thing than conversion, when a person begins to live that new life…

Kevan:

The new birth is a spiritual event that changes the life.

.

I guess I am not understanding you. The new birth you describe sounds to me like conversion. That is indeed a spiritual event that changes the life and affects how the person lives their life (beginning to live the Christian life).

But I am failing to understand what exactly you believe happens at Baptism. It is true that some people convert before Baptism (Acts 10, 47) and that some who are Baptised do not go on to live the Chritsian life. But do you mean to say nothing therefore happens at baptism?

Baptism undoes (so to speak) Original Sin. Original Sin was the loss of divine life for mankind. Adam could not pass on, by hereditary means, sanctifying grace ( divine nature) to his offspring. So baptism is now when we receive that new life (divine nature).

Think about it this way. If Adam and eve had not sinned and lost Sanctifying Grace, we would receive it at birth by hereditary means, regardless of whether or not we ever later in life chose to live according to God’s word, right? The two (the new life imparted to the Baptized, and the new life that a person begins at conversion) are separate things. That is why we must be baptized of water and of the Spirit.

Incidentally, this is why the Catholic Church has two sacraments of new birth, Baptism (of water, when the person becomes a child of God) and Confirmation (imparting of the Spirit, upon the person choosing to live according to God’s Word).

Kevan:

Many people have never passed from death to life, yet they believe that they have because they’ve been baptized.

Being baptized does not mean the person will lead a good life. But being baptized does cause the person to become a child of God, regardless of whether the person lives a life worthy of that honor. it is when we receive our divine nature and become a child of God.

 

[boppysbud]

Quicumque Vult (hope I spelt that right). I think it would be better to refer to the Eastern teaching by it’s proper name theosis.

You are probably aware of the Mormons also claim to teach divinisation, but their interpretation of divinisation ends up with human beings becomeing Gods themselves. (with the polytheism that follows).

Divinisation (at least the mormon theory) teaches that humans can not only share the energies of God, but can also share the essence of God.

Theosis teaches that while we can come to share in the energies of God, we can NEVER share in the essence of God.

 

[flameburns623]

There are two basic views among Protestants regarding soteriology: Arminianism and Calvinism/Augustinianism. (I hyphenated the second because Lutherans, for example, see their soteriology as drawn largely from St. Augustine but they do NOT accept Calvinism).

Arminianism is–barely–a minority view. It is held to by Methodists and Wesleyans; Campbellites; and most Pentecostals (Assemblies of God, Churches of God, etcetera). It explicitly REJECTS the “once-saved/always saved” view. Most of these groups, however, believe that one must come to some sort of personal ‘conversion’ event in one’s life: one must personally accept Jesus Christ as Savior in some fashion. So one need take care not to assume that just because someone is asking listeners to ‘make a decision for Christ’ that the speaker is teaching a once-saved/always-saved doctrine. What they are teaching, actually, is something called ‘decisionism’, the idea that each soul must make it’s own decision to serve God or not to serve Him.

Among Calvinists and Augustinian Protestants, only a few advocate ‘decisionism’–mainly the various Baptist sects. Many Calvinist or Augustinian churches practice infant baptism and believe in ‘baptismal regeneration’–that the infant is saved by the baptism it receives. Such churches often teach that the infant, as s/he matures to adulthood, must nonetheless eventually undergo his or her own personal experience of ‘conversion’, if s/he is truly of the Elect.

‘Making a decision for Christ’ or ‘experiencing conversion’ are distinct from the process of ‘sanctification’ in a Christian’s life. Sanctification is the process of being made holy. It is an evidence of the work of the Holy Spirit in a saved person’s life. Some Protestants reject the notion called ‘entire sanctification’ in which one becomes fully free from sin in this lifetime; however, no Protestant believes that a person who never makes any progress towards sanctification–however halting–is likely to be truly saved. It is true that some Calvinists have said that a mamber of the Elect will–theoretically–go to Heaven even if he or she were killed in the midst of some heinous sin-say, a suicide bomber who takes their own life at the same time that they kill scores of others. But they assert this as only a theoretical possibility: they would argue that a truly redeemed person would be extremely unlikely to commit such a heinous sin.

Wanted to clarify these things because I think folks are confusing some apples and oranges in this thread.

 

[Chris_W]

flameburns623:

Many Calvinist or Augustinian churches practice infant baptism and believe in ‘baptismal regeneration’–that the infant is saved by the baptism it receives. Such churches often teach that the infant, as s/he matures to adulthood, must nonetheless eventually undergo his or her own personal experience of ‘conversion’, if s/he is truly of the Elect.
.

Thanks for this helpful post!

Am I correct (asking Catholics here) to say that this agrees with Catholic teaching? This is how I understand Catholic teaching. An infant is saved by baptismal regeneration, but that person must also undergo personal conversion as he/she matures to adulthood.

I am a bit unsure of the difference between the ‘decisionism’ described in your post, and what I just said though. Is the difference that ‘decisionism’ does not recognize the salvific work of baptism, but rather, puts all emphasis on the conversion experience?

 

[RBushlow]

Philthy:

When you know enough to know that you don’t know it all and never will, you’ll begin to appreciate why Jesus founded a Church for us to turn to.

Catholic Salvation in a nutshell:

Salvation is initiated by God’s grace through Jesus’ atonement and communicated through the sacrament (visible sign instituted by Christ which communicates Grace) of Baptism. We must choose to continue to cooperate with this Grace through Faith by Love and by avoiding sin. When we fail - which is usually! - God offers us forgiveness through the sacrament of reconciliation. To spiritually strengthen us during our journey He communicates with us through prayer and gives us Himself in the Eucharist.

Wow!!! Great! That is the best exposition of the Catholic understanding of salvation that I have ever seen.

Pax vobiscum.

 

[Kevan]

Chris W:

But I am failing to understand what exactly you believe happens at Baptism. It is true that some people convert before Baptism (Acts 10, 47) and that some who are Baptised do not go on to live the Chritsian life. But do you mean to say nothing therefore happens at baptism?

Notice what you said in reference to Acts 10:47, “some people convert.” But look at the earlier verses: Peter said "All the prophets testify about him, that through his name everyone who believes in him will receive remission of sins." While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all those who heard the word. What happened here was not merely that some people made a decision to change their lives (even if they did). The text reports that these people received the Holy Spirit. However one interprets that, he has to concede that these people were regenerate (born again) before baptism, not merely that they decided to follow God.

I apologize for not being clear. I have actually avoided talking about what I believe concerning what happens at baptism. I’m trying to stick to the topic of what happens at the new birth. I see no room in the New Testament for a new birth that does not produce holiness. To simplify: the new birth and conversion are inseparable and, to some degree, identical. Those who have life are changed people. Unchanged people don’t have life and they need to be born again if they are to see the kingdom of God (Jn 3:3).

I do not mean to say that nothing happens at baptism. But in the case of an adult, I strongly assert that the new birth seldom accompanies baptism, even as you would allow that “conversion” need not accompany baptism. The important difference is this: you believe that an adult may be regenerate, may have life, may be a child of God, and yet not be “converted” (that is, be a conscious, commited follower of Christ). I don’t believe that any such salvation is offered in the Bible.

 

[Kevan]

flameburns623:

Arminianism is–barely–a minority view. It is held to by Methodists and Wesleyans; Campbellites; and most Pentecostals (Assemblies of God, Churches of God, etcetera). It explicitly REJECTS the “once-saved/always saved” view. Most of these groups, however, believe that one must come to some sort of personal ‘conversion’ event in one’s life: one must personally accept Jesus Christ as Savior in some fashion. So one need take care not to assume that just because someone is asking listeners to ‘make a decision for Christ’ that the speaker is teaching a once-saved/always-saved doctrine. What they are teaching, actually, is something called ‘decisionism’, the idea that each soul must make it’s own decision to serve God or not to serve Him.

Just to sharpen the analysis a little, the essence of Arminianism is General Redemption, which is opposed to the Particular Redemption doctrine of Calvinism. It affirms that Christ died for everyone, and not just for the elect. That being the case, all of these OSAS Evangelicals who don’t believe in Limited Atonement (Particular Redemption) are, in fact Arminians. It will elicit screams of rage when they hear it, but that’s because they don’t know the history of Arminianism.

That’s why decisionism is found among OSAS believers as well as among believers in Conditional Security (which teaches that perseverence is conditioned upon continuing faith). Both are Arminians at root.

All of the evangelical Calvinists whom I’ve known also believed in decisionism.

 

[Chris_W]

Kevan:

Notice what you said in reference to Acts 10:47, “some people convert.” But look at the earlier verses: Peter said "All the prophets testify about him, that through his name everyone who believes in him will receive remission of sins." While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all those who heard the word. What happened here was not merely that some people made a decision to change their lives (even if they did). The text reports that these people received the Holy Spirit. However one interprets that, he has to concede that these people were regenerate (born again) before baptism, not merely that they decided to follow God…

Again, I think we are arguing the definition of ‘born again’. it is true that these people received the Holy Spirit, and that certainly was a new beginning or new life, but I a merely pointing out that a new birth indeed does happen at baptism. The scriptures often describe how the people were then (later) Baptised. Why? Because it is through Baptism that we become a child of God. Sometimes this occurs before faith (as an infant for many people), and sometimes after (even after having received the Holy Spirit, as in Acts).

Kevan:

I apologize for not being clear. I have actually avoided talking about what I believe concerning what happens at baptism. I’m trying to stick to the topic of what happens at the new birth. I see no room in the New Testament for a new birth that does not produce holiness. To simplify: the new birth and conversion are inseparable and, to some degree, identical. Those who have life are changed people. Unchanged people don’t have life and they need to be born again if they are to see the kingdom of God (Jn 3:3)…

I am not suggesting a new birth that does not produce holiness. The sanctifying grace received at baptism IS holiness. The person, immediately following baptism is perfect, without defect of sin. They may go on to commit sin and separate themselves from God, but the fact is, they became a child of God at baptism. They are holy at that time, if only for a short while. Just as Adam and Eve were pure at their creation, until their sin.

I see this as very much on topic because I perceive that you are placing all importance on receiving the Holy Spirit after the age of reason. To do this is to render baptism unneccessary or without significance, in my opinion.

I

Kevan:

do not mean to say that nothing happens at baptism. But in the case of an adult, I strongly assert that the new birth seldom accompanies baptism, even as you would allow that “conversion” need not accompany baptism. The important difference is this: you believe that an adult may be regenerate, may have life, may be a child of God, and yet not be “converted” (that is, be a conscious, commited follower of Christ). I don’t believe that any such salvation is offered in the Bible.

You have stated my position correctly, but only to a point: I do believe an adult may be regenerated, thus having new life and becoming a child of God, as a result of Baptism. However, I did not say this is sufficient for salvation. It is necessary for salvation, but it is not of itself usually sufficient for salvation. The re-birth you describe is also necessary. I am not refuting the necessity of the re-birth you describe. I am merely stating that there is also a necessary re-birth that comes from Baptism…a point which you have not yet acknowleged, hence my concern.