Scripture on Salvation and the Eucharist

[JonNC]

The Catholic position is not only that justification is ongoing but rather there is no difference between sanctification and justification. There are no split stages. That kind of understanding came only with the reformation. For 1500 years, the Church did not have this dichotomy between sanctification and justification. There is just this process of being transformed into the image of Christ. And once the transformation is complete then God acknowledges you justified and sanctified, because He has completed the work He has began in you, indeed you are now just because you have been made so.

Now that the work is finished you are justified, but not at the beginning. No, God was just starting with you then, there was a fair way to go before you could be said to have been justified.
**
I would like to develop this a bit more by asking you:
**

• How do Lutherans understand Baptism?
• Do you baptise babies?
• If so why?
• Do you consider it a sacrament?
• How do you understand sacrament?

Peace and Joy of Christ!

Cory

I will respond later to your questions.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

**
I would like to develop this a bit more by asking you:
**

• How do Lutherans understand Baptism?
• Do you baptise babies?
• If so why?
• Do you consider it a sacrament?
• How do you understand sacrament?

Peace and Joy of Christ!

Cory

Cory,
Just briefly,

Baptism, and infant Baptism

Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary 2] to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God’s grace.

3] They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism.

Yes, it is a sacrament.

Lutherans have a three-part definition of sacrament: it is a sacred act
1.) instituted by God; 2.) in which God Himself has joined His Word of promise to the visible element; 3.) and by which He offers, gives and seals the forgiveness of sins earned by Christ

Jon

 

[benedictus2]

JonNC:
How then, does He wash one clean? Certainly not by what we do.
That is correct. And this is why we say grace is infused not imputed.

He gives us the grace and this grace actually has real ontological effects in the soul. The grace slowly transforms us into the image of Christ. This is how He washes us and makes us clean. He does not do it by declaring “You’re clean” which is what the forensic view of justification is.

Rather He gives us the grace to transform us and when we have been transformed He goes: “Aaah , at last you’re clean”.

I never thought of it as a dichotomy, except to describe what God does, and we do.

There is a real dichotomy and Protestant theologians have accepted that there is a dichotomy. They trace this to the fact that at the time of the reformation, Nominalist philosophy was in ascendant. Alister McGrath points out that this dichotomy is a theological novum, where before non existed.

As for Purgatory, if one describes it as a momentary cleansing at the time of death, as I have heard it described, I have no problem with that, either.

It may be momentary or not we do not know. What we do know is that there is a cleansing although some have actually not required this cleansing because prior to death, they were already completely transformed. There was no trace of self-love left, only love for God.

Honestly, I have never heard it called initial justification as a Lutheran.

I haven’t either until you used it. It has always been referred to as justification and was clearly differentiated from sanctification.

Why would you think your understanding of sola fide is more valid than mine, coming from what I’ve been taught all my life?

Not that it is more valid. But that by definition and syntactically, I think my understanding conforms to the original intent.

Which brings me to something I was mulling about in the train yesterday.

By your reasoning, faith alone means that the work is God’s.

By the same token, it can be reasoned that Works Alone is correct if we view it from your lens because we can say that we are saved by works because this works do not come from us but are results of God’s grace being infused in us so that we can do the work He requires for our salvation.

So viewed from your vantage point, Faith Alone and Work Alone will have the same meaning.

God is indeed the one at work. And that is the point, when compared to those who say one can earn that justification.

Works is very necessary but it is not a case of us doing the work and God rewarding us for the work. More like grace makes us do the work that God wants us to do for this is the way He intends to save us.
I would explain it this way.
Let’s suppose that salvation meant getting to the top of the mountain. God has decreed that to get there we need to walk up there. But sin has left us weak and hungry such that by ourselves we will have neither the will or strength to make the climb. God however gives us the sustenance (grace) that is necessary so that we can be strengthened and so be able to make the climb.

 

[benedictus2]

Cory,
Just briefly,

Baptism, and infant Baptism

Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary 2] to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God’s grace.

Thanks, I did think you regarded it as a sacrament.

Which brings me to this question.

In view of what you have written above, if we are justified by faith, how do you reconcile baptizing infants when they are not yet able to give assent to faith?

If we say that they are saved should they die after being baptized, doesn’t that mean that faith is not necessary for justification?

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;7088647]
That is correct. And this is why we say grace is infused not imputed.
He gives us the grace and this grace actually has real ontological effects in the soul. The grace slowly transforms us into the image of Christ. This is how He washes us and makes us clean. He does not do it by declaring “You’re clean” which is what the forensic view of justification is.

Righteous in His eyes. That doe not exclude the need to, throughout out lives as Christians, continue to conform ourselves to Him, with the help of the Holy Spirit.

Rather He gives us the grace to transform us and when we have been transformed He goes: “Aaah , at last you’re clean”.

I wouldn’t argue with the idea that, as I said above, we continue in our sanctification to conform ourselves to Him, with the help of the Holy Spirit.

There is a real dichotomy and Protestant theologians have accepted that there is a dichotomy. They trace this to the fact that at the time of the reformation, Nominalist philosophy was in ascendant. Alister McGrath points out that this dichotomy is a theological novum, where before non existed.

And Luther often points out the fact that “there is no justification without sanctification”, and " it is by faith alone, but faith is never alone".

It may be momentary or not we do not know. What we do know is that there is a cleansing although some have actually not required this cleansing because prior to death, they were already completely transformed. There was no trace of self-love left, only love for God.

Maybe I’ve been hanging around here too long, but I see no problem with this, a momentary cleansing. you make a good point when you say, we don’t know.

I haven’t either until you used it. It has always been referred to as justification and was clearly differentiated from sanctification.

Not that it is more valid. But that by definition and syntactically, I think my understanding conforms to the original intent.

i would respectfully disagree.

Which brings me to something I was mulling about in the train yesterday.

By your reasoning, faith alone means that the work is God’s.

By the same token, it can be reasoned that Works Alone is correct if we view it from your lens because we can say that we are saved by works because this works do not come from us but are results of God’s grace being infused in us so that we can do the work He requires for our salvation.

So viewed from your vantage point, Faith Alone and Work Alone will have the same meaning.
I don’t know about works alone, as that isn’t what scripture says, but I would accept the role of works even as Catholics seem to define it, if there is an understanding that they are His works.

Works is very necessary but it is not a case of us doing the work and God rewarding us for the work. More like grace makes us do the work that God wants us to do for this is the way He intends to save us.

Agreed!

I would explain it this way.
Let’s suppose that salvation meant getting to the top of the mountain. God has decreed that to get there we need to walk up there. But sin has left us weak and hungry such that by ourselves we will have neither the will or strength to make the climb. God however gives us the sustenance (grace) that is necessary so that we can be strengthened and so be able to make the climb.

First, we receive the faith that He has decreed it - justification.
The sustenance (grace) that makes it possible and us willing to to try - sanctification.
And its not a dichotomy, as the two go together.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Thanks, I did think you regarded it as a sacrament.

Which brings me to this question.

In view of what you have written above, if we are justified by faith, how do you reconcile baptizing infants when they are not yet able to give assent to faith?

If we say that they are saved should they die after being baptized, doesn’t that mean that faith is not necessary for justification?

First, who says the reception into God’s grace through the sacrament of Baptism does not impart faith, even to an infant? How could we know? “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for such is the kingdom of Heaven.” etc.

If we understand that faith alone is not a limit on God, or on His grace, and we believe that through Baptism, Gods grace provides forgiveness of sin, it makes infant Baptism all the more important.

Jon

 

[benedictus2]

Righteous in His eyes.

Righteous in His eyes? How can we be when at that stage when we are still the grimy, foul smelling creatures that we are; so totally unrighteous? That would be like God is deceiving Himself. I have no doubt that He loves us miserable, putrid, foul smelling creatures that we are as we are but that is different to being seen as righteous.
We only become righteous in His eyes when we ARE righteous because we have already been sanctified.

That doe not exclude the need to, throughout out lives as Christians, continue to conform ourselves to Him, with the help of the Holy Spirit.

But if according to you we are already righteous in His eyes, what is the need to be conformed to the image of Christ. If being righteous is what is required for salvation and as far as God is concerned we are already righteous, what’s it the purpose of sanctification?

And Luther often points out the fact that “there is no justification without sanctification”, and " it is by faith alone, but faith is never alone".

But nonetheless the dichotomy is now there because of Reformed thinking where before it wasn’t. McGrath does say it is notional but even notional, this split is what makes for a weak doctrine.

First, we receive the faith that He has decreed it - justification.

Not quite since those who are baptized as babies do not have faith. Even after they are baptized they still do not have faith. That is why you see a lot of people who were baptized but grow up practical atheists because after baptism no other faith instruction followed.

The sustenance (grace) that makes it possible and us willing to to try - sanctification. And its not a dichotomy, as the two go together.

But there is a dichotomy because they are two very distinct processes and stages even though you say that one follows the other.

 

[benedictus2]

First, who says the reception into God’s grace through the sacrament of Baptism does not impart faith, even to an infant?

Now that is a very interesting point. As far our discussion is concerned, I have always regarded faith as a conscious assent to God, based on the person knowing the Lord.

However, you may be right there that at baptism, the soul, because of the pristine state it is in comes to faith and knowledge of God at a very primordial level.

But the difficulty of this line of reasoning is that you are now saying that faith comes after being justified, in which case it is no longer justification because of faith, but rather coming to faith because of justification.

How could we know? “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for such is the kingdom of Heaven.” etc.

If we understand that faith alone is not a limit on God, or on His grace, and we believe that through Baptism, Gods grace provides forgiveness of sin, it makes infant Baptism all the more important.

Absolutely. I agree with that 10000%

Peace!

Cory

 

[Miriam1947]

I’m talking with a protestant friend of mine and I wish that he truly hears me out, but I want to make sure that I am saying the right things. Please help me out and see if I can make my case for Catholic teaching stronger through Scripture.

I’m late to this thread so perhaps someone already recommended this book.

The Biblical Basis for the Catholic Faith by John Salza. Excellent.

“…John Salza quotes only from the Bible to explain the basic doctrine of the Catholic Church.”

This book is an excellent resource especially since a Protestant will probably not accept any of the teachings of the early Church fathers.

 

[JonNC]

I’m late to this thread so perhaps someone already recommended this book.

The Biblical Basis for the Catholic Faith by John Salza. Excellent.

“…John Salza quotes only from the Bible to explain the basic doctrine of the Catholic Church.”

This book is an excellent resource especially since a Protestant will probably not accept any of the teachings of the early Church fathers.

I’d recommend caution on this very broad generalization. The Lutheran reformers refer often to the ECF’s, the Anglicans probably even moreso, and I suspect Calvinists do to some extent.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Now that is a very interesting point. As far our discussion is concerned, I have always regarded faith as a conscious assent to God, based on the person knowing the Lord.

However, you may be right there that at baptism, the soul, because of the pristine state it is in comes to faith and knowledge of God at a very primordial level.

But the difficulty of this line of reasoning is that you are now saying that faith comes after being justified, in which case it is no longer justification because of faith, but rather coming to faith because of justification.

Peace!

Cory

Peace also with you, Cory.
I’m not sure I follow where you think I said the bolded.

Jon

 

[benedictus2]

Peace also with you, Cory.
I’m not sure I follow where you think I said the bolded.

Jon

From this:

JonNC:

First, who says the reception into God’s grace through the sacrament of Baptism does not impart faith, even to an infant?

I took this to mean that Baptism imparts faith. If a child is justfied at baptism and baptism imparts faith, then does that not mean that faith comes through justification?

I actually have no problem with this because I believe that it is grace that justifies, the grace of faith can come at Baptism although it obviously needs to be nurtured by and within a faith filled family environment.

 

[benedictus2]

I’d recommend caution on this very broad generalization. The Lutheran reformers refer often to the ECF’s, the Anglicans probably even moreso, and I suspect Calvinists do to some extent.

Jon

I’d agree with that. I am finding Protestant’s here on this thread who actually consider the ECFs in their theologizing.

 

[JonNC]

From this:

I took this to mean that Baptism imparts faith. If a child is justfied at baptism and baptism imparts faith, then does that not mean that faith comes through justification?

I actually have no problem with this because I believe that it is grace that justifies, the grace of faith can come at Baptism although it obviously needs to be nurtured by and within a faith filled family environment.

Ok, I see what you are saying. And I agree that we are justified by grace through faith.

Jon

 

[Miriam1947]

I’d recommend caution on this very broad generalization. The Lutheran reformers refer often to the ECF’s, the Anglicans probably even moreso, and I suspect Calvinists do to some extent.

Jon

Sorry about that, I guess I should have made myself clear.

I was a Protestant in the most general sense. I have never been to a Lutheran church, nor an Anglican one. My apologies to anyone I offended.

I have been to Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentacostal, non-denominational, Baptist, etc. I was never baptized and never became a member of any church until I became Catholic.

Protestant to me has always been Christian but not Catholic.

 

[JonNC]

Sorry about that, I guess I should have made myself clear.

I was a Protestant in the most general sense. I have never been to a Lutheran church, nor an Anglican one. My apologies to anyone I offended.

I have been to Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentacostal, non-denominational, Baptist, etc. I was never baptized and never became a member of any church until I became Catholic.

Protestant to me has always been Christian but not Catholic.

No offense taken, Miriam. That darned word Protestant!

I give thanks that you were baptized, and are receiving His grace.

Jon

 

[benedictus2]

Ok, I see what you are saying. And I agree that we are justified by grace through faith.

Jon

Actually, that is not what I am saying.

This turn in the discussion however has clarified quite a lot of things for me and I will summarize my position in a post but most likely that will happen on the weekend.

Peace and Joy of Christ,

Cory

 

[benedictus2]

Ok, I see what you are saying. And I agree that we are justified by grace through faith.

Jon

I may be misunderstanding the phrase “justified by grace through faith” but here’s my problem with it.

Stated in this manner, faith is the means through which God give us the grace of salvation / justification so therefore faith comes first.

Schematically it looks like this : Faith → Grace —> Justification.

It is in effect saying that we acquire faith by our selves and when we have the faith then God gives us the grace to be justified.

But that is ludicrous. It is no better than saying we save ourselves by our works except that in this case we save ourselves by our faith which is our own work.

At the very beginning is Grace. God acts first. God descends.

Through God’s grace, faith is given but here a response is necessary. Faith is both a gift and a response.

So schematically: Grace --.> Faith and Love -->Deifification (Salvation)

The fruits of grace is not limited to faith. The fruits of grace result in both faith and works but sometimes it is just works (perhaps for a time) which is a manifestation of love.

Those who have “fed the hungry, clothe the naked, given drink to the thirsty”, have been able to do this by God’s grace and not everyone who has done this has necessarily found faith in Christ. Some have died not knowing Christ but have nonetheless cooperated with the prompting of the Holy Spirit by their works.

 

[fxcc]

Schematically it looks like this : Faith → Grace —> Justification.

It is in effect saying that we acquire faith by our selves and when we have the faith then God gives us the grace to be justified.

If grace is received only through faith (in Jesus Christ as one’s personal savior), could anyone be “FULL of grace”, enjoying God’s favor, even BEFORE Jesus had been incarnated as man? Could God Himself have confirmed such a thing through an angel? And if God did confirm such a thing, would that imply that that person had been “justified”/“sanctified”/“saved” by special grace in anticipation of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice? Perhaps even at her birth? Could that be a possibility at all?

 

[benedictus2]

If grace is received only through faith (in Jesus Christ as one’s personal savior), could anyone be “FULL of grace”, enjoying God’s favor, even BEFORE Jesus had been incarnated as man? Could God Himself have confirmed such a thing through an angel? And if God did confirm such a thing, would that imply that that person had been “justified”/“sanctified”/“saved” by special grace in anticipation of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice? Perhaps even at her birth? Could that be a possibility at all?

It’s more than a possibility. That is why I am keeping this post short so I can go to bed and wake up early to make it to Mass tomorrow.

Happy Feast of the Immaculate Conception.