Sin and Salvation

[bjcros]

Mickey:

Sin and sin boldly! It doesn’t matter–once saved always saved!

:banghead:

Thats not what I’m saying. I’m saying that if I sin I’m already forgiven, but with the help of the Holy Spirit I won’t sin.

 

[Mickey]

bjcros:

We play no part in our Salvation either.

…with fear and trembling work out your salvation. phil 2:12

 

[Mickey]

bjcros:

Thats not what I’m saying. I’m saying that if I sin I’m already forgiven, but with the help of the Holy Spirit I won’t sin.

Sorry I misunderstood you. I agree for the most part–except I confess my sins to a priest. (another thread)

But it is only with the help of the Holy Spirit that we can refrain from sinning.

 

[bjcros]

Church Militant:

bjcros said:
Really? Then what does this mean? 1st John 5:16 He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that any man ask. 17 All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death.

We call it “mortal sin”. This and other passages differentiate between the two (as in the passage about blasphemy of the Holy Spirit).

You certainly have changed the “Gospel” from all we’ve heard from all the other Protestants that have wandered through here, as well as what we ourselves have learned from the Church. Now who am I likely to believe? Grace and faith are gifts from God, but if we do not choose to cooperate with those gifts then we are eternal toast. The NT clearly tells us that faith demonstartes itself by the works that it produces.
(You know I’m gonna quote James on ya …) James 2:14 What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? 15 And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food:

16 And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? 17 So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. 18 But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. 19 Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? 25 And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way? 26 For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.

No Catholic would disagree with this statement…
So…you are a strict Calvinist. Sorry…no can do. Calvinism is ludicrous since it makes us a bunch of spiritual robots with no free will to truly love and serve God.

So then a Calvinist who “gets saved” and then before he dies goes postal and shoots and kills his whole family and maybe commits several other heinous crimes along the way before the SWAT team puts a single round through his head is still going to heaven because he was “chosen by God for salvation” and his deeds don’t matter? Or will he just get a much lesser reward in heaven because he got kinda messed up on the way? But he was “saved”… he had placed his faith in Christ for his salvation had he not? You just told us that one cannot lose one’s salvation didn’t you?
Sorry…that just doesn’t wash…at all, at all.

It is by the grace of God that I have faith. Faith comes from the Grace. You won’t deny God’s grace if God chooses to give you grace then your sins are paid for and you can’t resist his gift. All that James says is that true faith will produce works. If you have faith you will have works. yes we are justified by works and faith but Grace leads to faith and faith leads to works. My friend Calvinism isn’t anymore “ludicrous” than Catholicism. I’m not going to go there because it is too much hassle for me. But please don’t make another statement like that b/c I haven’t done so to you. Your hypothetic situation is very cute. But it is very easy to refute. If he really were saved and was choosen then he wouldn’t have done it. The reason you hate my position is because you don’t have control. Well hate to burst your bubble but we can’t do anything without God. We aren’t in control of anything.

 

[mercygate]

bjcros:

but he doesn’t say what those sins are, yet the church has ruled on that despite other evidence.

Excuse me? “Despite other evidence?” The Church asseses the seriousness of sin based on the “evidence” of the Commandments, on the beatitudes, and on the moral values that resound through all of Scripture.

That quote is misleading b/c in the following verse it says “All wrongdoing is sin”. Sin no matter how small or insifnificant we think it is will always seperate us from God.

Yes, all sin is poison; but not all sin cuts us off entirely – which is *exactly *what these verses explain.

I’m not sure the exact place but The Bible says . . . . we are enslaved to sin, and are dead in it. However, with Christs blood we are made alive. Christ paid the price of sin for all those who the Lord calls.

I’m smelling a “tulip” is this your “I?”

bj, If you’re going to allude to Scripture for your authority, you need to cite it.

Of our free-will we can’t choose God. We are so evil and depraved of goodness that we can’t choose to do the right thing.

That’s the “T” in the tulip: you don’t believe in free will, and man is totally depraved.

If you want to be very legalistic. If you could live a perfect life without sin, which is impossible, but didn’t accept Jesus’s death for you, your still doomed to hell, because of original sin… and the original sin needs to be paid for, and that is what Christ did. Christ took all of the sins of those who accept him and paid the price on the cross.

There’s the “L.”

I can sin, I can be living in a state of sin when I die and be free of worry because I have already accepted Christ’s forgiveness.

And there is the “U” in the tulip.

No “P” – bj is either a four-point Calvinist or he left out the “P.”

bjcros:

Do Catholics believe, If someone were ignorant of sin and didn’t believe in Christ, would they go to Heaven?

From The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**

1281

Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized (cf. LG 16).**
Nevertheless, all salvation is through the Cross.

 

[John_Henry]

but he doesn’t say what those sins are, yet the church has ruled on that despite other evidence.

Not to be picky, but that isn’t true. There is no list of mortal sins. The church has only layed out the necessary conditions of a sin that involves a complete turning away from God. Knowledge that it is a sin, freedom in the act, and gravity. People usually take issue with the gravity part, but to say that lying to your grandmother about how her cake was REALLY good and slaughtering a child in cold blood are the same thing is ludicrous.

That quote is misleading b/c in the following verse it says “All wrongdoing is sin”. Sin no matter how small or insifnificant we think it is will always seperate us from God.

All wrongdoing is sin, yes, but also, not all sin is mortal. That is exactly what the verse says. Not misleading at all.

I’m not sure the exact place but The Bible says we are enslaved to sin

I’d be interested in the chapter and verse on that one

and are dead in it.

Ah, but what does that mean? Does that mean that we cannot save ourselves? If so, then everyone is in agreement. Does it mean that every action is always utterly evil? Is so, then we disagree.

However, with Christs blood we are made alive.

Amen

After that, you kinda degenerate into a Calvinist rant. If you are interested in the similarities and differences between Calvinism and Catholicism, check this out:
cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm

 

[Mickey]

bjcros:

It is by the grace of God that I have faith. Faith comes from the Grace. You won’t deny God’s grace if God chooses to give you grace then your sins are paid for and you can’t resist his gift. All that James says is that true faith will produce works. If you have faith you will have works. yes we are justified by works and faith but Grace leads to faith and faith leads to works. My friend Calvinism isn’t anymore “ludicrous” than Catholicism. I’m not going to go there because it is too much hassle for me. But please don’t make another statement like that b/c I haven’t done so to you. Your hypothetic situation is very cute. But it is very easy to refute. If he really were saved and was choosen then he wouldn’t have done it. The reason you hate my position is because you don’t have control. Well hate to burst your bubble but we can’t do anything without God. We aren’t in control of anything.

Don’t get angry BJ,

I don’t follow you. Church Militant said, and I’m paraphrasing for him, that we are save by grace through faith and our works are the fruit of our faith. That is a Catholic teaching. What is your dilemma?

 

[bjcros]

mercygate:

Excuse me? “Despite other evidence?” The Church asseses the seriousness of sin based on the “evidence” of the Commandments, on the beatitudes, and on the moral values that resound through all of Scripture. Yes, all sin is poison; but not all sin cuts us off entirely – which is *exactly *what these verses explain.I’m smelling a “tulip” is this your “I?”

bj, If you’re going to allude to Scripture for your authority, you need to cite it.

That’s the “T” in the tulip: you don’t believe in free will, and man is totally depraved.There’s the “L.” And there is the “U” in the tulip.

No “P” – bj is either a four-point Calvinist or he left out the “P.” From The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**
Nevertheless, all salvation is through the Cross.**

I am a five point calvinist. I didn’t put the ‘p’ on.(b/c i didn’t want to disprove you to quickly lol, jk) Your right all salvation is through the Cross. The argument that we can loose salvation seems to negate the effect of the Cross. I see that the Cross pays for all of my sin. I think the only way you can say that you can loose salvation is if the Cross doesn’t pay for all of the sins. Is that what you believe?

 

[bjcros]

Mickey:

Don’t get angry BJ,

I don’t follow you. Church Militant said, and I’m paraphrasing for him, that we are save by grace through faith and our works are the fruit of our faith. That is a Catholic teaching. What is your dilemma?

Firstly, I don’t think I was angry. but if I was I am sorry, that prob was when I responded to his called my position ludicrous. So I asked him not to do that. My dillema is that you say that salvation can be lost. I don’t think that is correct. It sounds like your saying the Cross doesn’t cover my sins, which it does. I believe I am saved by grace and my sins have been covered by Christs blood nothing I can do will change that.

 

[bjcros]

John_Henry:

Not to be picky, but that isn’t true. There is no list of mortal sins. The church has only layed out the necessary conditions of a sin that involves a complete turning away from God. Knowledge that it is a sin, freedom in the act, and gravity. People usually take issue with the gravity part, but to say that lying to your grandmother about how her cake was REALLY good and slaughtering a child in cold blood are the same thing is ludicrous.

All wrongdoing is sin, yes, but also, not all sin is mortal. That is exactly what the verse says. Not misleading at all.

I’d be interested in the chapter and verse on that one

Ah, but what does that mean? Does that mean that we cannot save ourselves? If so, then everyone is in agreement. Does it mean that every action is always utterly evil? Is so, then we disagree.

Amen

After that, you kinda degenerate into a Calvinist rant. If you are interested in the similarities and differences between Calvinism and Catholicism, check this out:
cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm

So your telling me that if I break the Ten Commandments by slaughtering a child in cold blood I am going to be held accountable. But if I break the Ten Commandments by lying to my grandmother about how her cake was REALLY good, that God will overlook that, even though I have and broken his commandments.

I thought that there was some list of mortal sins. I still don’t see any distinction between each sin, whether mortal or venial. You do have evidence to support your position, and I grant you that. It doesn’t make sense to me to distinguish between sin. I see that all sin seperates us from death.

I meant that we cannot save ourselves just as Calvinists believe.

 

[mercygate]

bjcros:

I am a five point calvinist. I didn’t put the ‘p’ on.(b/c i didn’t want to disprove you to quickly lol, jk) Your right all salvation is through the Cross. The argument that we can loose salvation seems to negate the effect of the Cross. I see that the Cross pays for all of my sin. I think the only way you can say that you can loose salvation is if the Cross doesn’t pay for all of the sins. Is that what you believe?

The Cross, indeed, makes salvation possible for all, and the work of the cross is effective: complete. But Catholics believe in free will because without free will, we cannot love, and we are made for love.

Thus, we are called to love God (that’s a commandment, btw ), and we are called to love him with every breath we draw – which means choosing him in freedom. Catholics believe that passages like Hebrews 6:4-6 must be reconciled with passages which appear to promise unconditional salvation. Thus, we understand that while Christ accomplished – “finished” – his mission “once for all,” we are nonetheless in a living relationship with him. That means the possibility of drawing back and, yes, even losing the gift of eternal life into which we entered with our baptism. Catholics experience Christ in an ongoing relationship of love and will. There is an old monastic adage: “We fall down; we get up. We fall down; we get up.” Catholics tend to be fond of the parable of the Prodigal Son.

The possibility of losing our salvation in no way compromises the salvific act of God. It is, in fact, testimony to the dignity God created in us when he declared ‘everything he had made very good’ (Gen 1:31). Catholics believe that original sin is a mortal wound requiring divine reparation, but not that we are utterly depraved. It does not make God any “better” to make us “worse.”

Nor do Catholics find the possibility of damnation threatening or frightening in the least. It is the condition of freedom, and it offers us the opportunity of living in joyful hope (there are some 80 references to the “hope” of salvation in the New Testament – too many to list here: check your concordance). My own observation is that if we truly love God and trust him, we would accept with perfect peace even our own condemnation, knowing that it comes of his perfect justice, his righteousness, and his love.

 

[bjcros]

mercygate:

The Cross, indeed, makes salvation possible for all, and the work of the cross is effective: complete. But Catholics believe in free will because without free will, we cannot love, and we are made for love.

Thus, we are called to love God (that’s a commandment, btw ), and we are called to love him with every breath we draw – which means choosing him in freedom. Catholics believe that passages like Hebrews 6:4-6 must be reconciled with passages which appear to promise unconditional salvation. Thus, we understand that while Christ accomplished – “finished” – his mission “once for all,” we are nonetheless in a living relationship with him. That means the possibility of drawing back and, yes, even losing the gift of eternal life into which we entered with our baptism. Catholics experience Christ in an ongoing relationship of love and will. There is an old monastic adage: “We fall down; we get up. We fall down; we get up.” Catholics tend to be fond of the parable of the Prodigal Son.

The possibility of losing our salvation in no way compromises the salvific act of God. It is, in fact, testimony to the dignity God created in us when he declared ‘everything he had made very good’ (Gen 1:31). Catholics believe that original sin is a mortal wound requiring divine reparation, but not that we are utterly depraved. It does not make God any “better” to make us “worse.”

Nor do Catholics find the possibility of damnation threatening or frightening in the least. It is the condition of freedom, and it offers us the opportunity of living in joyful hope (there are some 80 references to the “hope” of salvation in the New Testament – too many to list here: check your concordance). My own observation is that if we truly love God and trust him, we would accept with perfect peace even our own condemnation, knowing that it comes of his perfect justice, his righteousness, and his love.

As a good Calvinist I say we don’t have free will. Also that we will not choose God because we aren’t able to in our sin. I don’t like not being able to choose but it just makes sense that I couldn’t have choose him if he didn’t choose me first. All of the other tulip points logically follow. I don’t know what you mean when you say “It doesn’t make God any “better” to make us “worse.”” Could you please explain it. Thats great that your not threatened by it. I don’t believe in it and I hold that is wrong.

 

[mercygate]

bjcros:

As a good Calvinist I say we don’t have free will. Also that we will not choose God because we aren’t able to in our sin. I don’t like not being able to choose but it just makes sense that I couldn’t have choose him if he didn’t choose me first. All of the other tulip points logically follow. I don’t know what you mean when you say “It doesn’t make God any “better” to make us “worse.”” Could you please explain it. Thats great that your not threatened by it. I don’t believe in it and I hold that is wrong.

Catholics believe that ‘God chooses first.’ The better/worse comment was that our opinion of our own depravity does not enhance God’s goodness by the contrast. Tulilp will never work for me because, though you say it is logical, it is illogical for God to desire our love, then make it impossible for us to give it to him.

 

[jimmy]

bjcros:

but he doesn’t say what those sins are, yet the church has ruled on that despite other evidence. That quote is misleading b/c in the following verse it says “All wrongdoing is sin”. Sin no matter how small or insifnificant we think it is will always seperate us from God. I’m not sure the exact place but The Bible says we are enslaved to sin, and are dead in it. However, with Christs blood we are made alive. Christ paid the price of sin for all those who the Lord calls. Of our free-will we can’t choose God. We are so evil and depraved of goodness that we can’t choose to do the right thing. If you want to be very legalistic. If you could live a perfect life without sin, which is impossible, but didn’t accept Jesus’s death for you, your still doomed to hell, because of original sin… and the original sin needs to be paid for, and that is what Christ did. Christ took all of the sins of those who accept him and paid the price on the cross. I can sin, I can be living in a state of sin when I die and be free of worry because I have already accepted Christ’s forgiveness. Do Catholics believe, If someone were ignorant of sin and didn’t believe in Christ, would they go to Heaven?

I agree, all sin is sin, but not all sin is the same. It says right there that they are not all the same.

 

[Church_Militant]

Calvinism is bunk and most non-Catholics don’t even believe that.

If God is perfect, then God knows that to take away our free will negates our ability to really love Him as he desires. One who is forced to “love” does not love truly. (ask anyone historically that has been forced to marry…)

Spokenword said:

To a believer the sin of death is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

All other sins that are confessed are forgiven and are not deadly.Life will be restored. In Gods eyes sin is sin.Penalties will very according to God wrath.

I’m so very glad you chose to allude to that passage! You are talking about Matthew 12:31 Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.

Verse 32 clearly implies that some sins CAN be forgiven in the world to come. This is not new or unique to Catholicism. Ask any Hasidic Jew about sheol and he will tell you that they believe that there is indeed a condition of purification after death that is not hell per se nor heaven. Hence that makes 2 Maccabees 12:46 make all the more sense. If you are so wise in the Bible…explain to us just what Jesus means by sin being forgiven (or not) “in the world to come” In the context of the passage above from 1st John 5 that you borrowed from me this becomes all the more clear.

This passage further clarifies this:
Matthew 5:25 Be at agreement with thy adversary betimes, whilst thou art in the way with him: lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

26 Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing.

Where will you not get out of? Jesus is talking about judgements here…where is this prison that you will not be released from until you have paid of the temporal debt of sins? Purgatory is just a name for it the same way the word Trinity is used to define a doctrine that is implicit in the Bible.

This doctrine has far better support from the Word of God than OSAS or Calvinism. I would think that people who tell me that they believe the Bible alone for the source of all their deposit of faith would see this better than OSAS etc.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Church_Militant]

bjcros:

It is by the grace of God that I have faith. Faith comes from the Grace. You won’t deny God’s grace if God chooses to give you grace then your sins are paid for and you can’t resist his gift. All that James says is that true faith will produce works. If you have faith you will have works. yes we are justified by works and faith but Grace leads to faith and faith leads to works. My friend Calvinism isn’t anymore “ludicrous” than Catholicism. I’m not going to go there because it is too much hassle for me. But please don’t make another statement like that b/c I haven’t done so to you. Your hypothetic situation is very cute. But it is very easy to refute. If he really were saved and was choosen then he wouldn’t have done it. The reason you hate my position is because you don’t have control. Well hate to burst your bubble but we can’t do anything without God. We aren’t in control of anything.

“Ludicrous” is a valid term for any position that defies good sense and logic…not to mention theology. Most n-Cs feel the same way and only a handful (compared to all the N-Cs I know) share your position.

If defense of your position is “too much hassle” for you perhaps you shouldn’t post here because we are going to expect you to provide the same proofs that you require of us. This is no joke to us…

You have implied many things in your posts under the guise of asking questions. Do you really expect us to sit here and field your allegations and such without calling you to account for your doctrines even as you have done us

As for you refutation of my case in point…then you have no assurance of salvation at all…and a Calvinist is just as likely to be a heinous sinner as anyone else on this planet. But we already stated that he complied with the way of salvation…he prayed his sinner’s prayer and the whole bit. Did it not take? Did God not hear his prayer? I mean shouldn’t he have been righteous all the way to his death? I can see no difference between a calvinist who sins and the unbeliever that sins.

(oftopic, but relevent to calvin)
BTW…since you claim to espouse Calvin’s teaching. do you also follow it concerning the Blessed Mother as the mother of God since he also espoused that? Or did you not read that part of his writings?

Here’s a direct quote from your hero:
“It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of His Son, granted her the highest honor… Elizabeth calls Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God.”
(Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorm [Braunschweig-Berlin,1863-1900] Volume 45, 348, 35.)

and again:
“There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matthew 1:25} that Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary… He had therfore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company…And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of a second.[/COLOR]” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562)

I have to disgree with Calvin on salvation, but at least he was right on about Our Lady!

I fact all three “pillars of the reformation” shared the same views of the Blessed Virgin that we do…
Pax vobiscum,

 

[bjcros]

“Ludicrous” is a valid term for any position that defies good sense and logic…not to mention theology. Most n-Cs feel the same way and only a handful (compared to all the N-Cs I know) share your position.

If defense of your position is “too much hassle” for you perhaps you shouldn’t post here because we are going to expect you to provide the same proofs that you require of us. This is no joke to us…

You have implied many things in your posts under the guise of asking questions. Do you really expect us to sit here and field your allegations and such without calling you to account for your doctrines even as you have done us

As for you refutation of my case in point…then you have no assurance of salvation at all…and a Calvinist is just as likely to be a heinous sinner as anyone else on this planet. But we already stated that he complied with the way of salvation…he prayed his sinner’s prayer and the whole bit. Did it not take? Did God not hear his prayer? I mean shouldn’t he have been righteous all the way to his death? I can see no difference between a calvinist who sins and the unbeliever that sins.

(oftopic, but relevent to calvin)
BTW…since you claim to espouse Calvin’s teaching. do you also follow it concerning the Blessed Mother as the mother of God since he also espoused that? Or did you not read that part of his writings?

Here’s a direct quote from your hero:
“It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of His Son, granted her the highest honor… Elizabeth calls Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God.”
(Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorm [Braunschweig-Berlin,1863-1900] Volume 45, 348, 35.)

and again:
“There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matthew 1:25} that Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary… He had therfore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company…And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of a second.[/color]” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562)

I have to disgree with Calvin on salvation, but at least he was right on about Our Lady!

I fact all three “pillars of the reformation” shared the same views of the Blessed Virgin that we do…
Pax vobiscum,

Ludicrous isn’t a valid a valid word when you haven’t proven that my position is “any position that defies good sense and logic…not to mention theology”. All you said is “Calvinism is ludicrous since it makes us a bunch of spiritual robots with no free will to truly love and serve God.” That doesn’t prove or disprove anything, except that you can use fancy words but can’t back them up. I was saying that putting all of my doctrinal issues with your position and my views on them and it really isn’t the right place to do that. When I said it was too much of a hassle. First of all I hold to what Calvin wrote on predestination. I haven’t read anything else. I don’t follow his logic that Mary was without sin and I don’t think that he is right that she didn’t have any other children. I hold that she was with sin, and that she could have had other children haven’t exactly thought out the implications of whether or not she had children. I don’t know what your referring to when you say “I fact all three “pillars of the reformation” shared the same views of the Blessed Virgin that we do”. If you mean that Lutheran and other reformers believed that. I don’t know. It doesn’t matter what they believe about this in my mind. If they hold the same beliefs as you then I hold that they were wrong in that aspect.

 

[bjcros]

mercygate:

The Cross, indeed, makes salvation possible for all, and the work of the cross is effective: complete. But Catholics believe in free will because without free will, we cannot love, and we are made for love.

Thus, we are called to love God (that’s a commandment, btw ), and we are called to love him with every breath we draw – which means choosing him in freedom. Catholics believe that passages like Hebrews 6:4-6 must be reconciled with passages which appear to promise unconditional salvation. Thus, we understand that while Christ accomplished – “finished” – his mission “once for all,” we are nonetheless in a living relationship with him. That means the possibility of drawing back and, yes, even losing the gift of eternal life into which we entered with our baptism. Catholics experience Christ in an ongoing relationship of love and will. There is an old monastic adage: “We fall down; we get up. We fall down; we get up.” Catholics tend to be fond of the parable of the Prodigal Son.

The possibility of losing our salvation in no way compromises the salvific act of God. It is, in fact, testimony to the dignity God created in us when he declared ‘everything he had made very good’ (Gen 1:31). Catholics believe that original sin is a mortal wound requiring divine reparation, but not that we are utterly depraved. It does not make God any “better” to make us “worse.”

Nor do Catholics find the possibility of damnation threatening or frightening in the least. It is the condition of freedom, and it offers us the opportunity of living in joyful hope (there are some 80 references to the “hope” of salvation in the New Testament – too many to list here: check your concordance). My own observation is that if we truly love God and trust him, we would accept with perfect peace even our own condemnation, knowing that it comes of his perfect justice, his righteousness, and his love.

Thats great that you don’t find the possibilty of damnation threatening, because you believe in it. I don’t like that idea and don’t see it as biblical. Throughout the Bible there are refrences to the elite. In the OT the choosen people were the Jews, and not because of anything they did. Just because the Lord gives mercy to those he chooses. We can’t judge him. I see the ultimate reason for anything that happens is for the glory of God, so I live my life in order to give him glory in all I do. No where in the Bible is free will mentioned though. The Armenians are protestants that believe in free will. They are in the majority. But I hold that I have more scriptual evidence.lol. Just because I don’t have free will doesn’t diminish my ability to love God. but rather enhances it, because God gave me that ability, and opened my eyes.

 

[mercygate]

bjcros:

No where in the Bible is free will mentioned though.

Nor Incarnation, nor Trinity . . . and 24 hours ago you didn’t know there was such a thing as mortal sin in the Bible.

The Armenians are protestants that believe in free will.

**Armenians? **

 

[petra]

bjcros:

What is the difference between mortal sin and other sin? Can a believer who has been saved, lose their salvation?

BJ, I was a staunch Calvinist for 22 and felt prepared to answer any objection that ever countered it. You may find it interesting that several of the TULIP points are not incompatible with Catholicism. Even Perseverance of the Saints is not incompatible if we understand election to refer to those that were chosen or predestined to persevere. But the Bible clearly teaches that there are people who acquire a saving faith, but do not endure.

I’m a little pressed for time right at the moment, but I’ll try to write more this weekend. In the meantime, read John 15:1-17, and the entire book of 1 John. Do you know what the word “abide” means? I used to think it meant “live” (I don’t know, it sounds like abode!) So all the verses that say, “If you abide in Me…” I thought meant, “If you live in Me…”

But “abide” actually means “remain, endure without yielding, continue in place.” This implies that there are people that may at one time be in Christ, and at another time, not be in Christ. Read those passages aloud and replace the word abide with remain. Do these passages take on new meaning?

As someone else pointed out, we are saved by grace through faith, but a saving faith produces works. The fruit of our faith gives us the assurance that our faith is salvific (1 Jn. 5:13). It is also possible to neglect or destroy salvific faith through serious sin. Others have cited scriptures that discuss sins unto death (mortal sins). If this is not possible, why all the warnings about remaining in Christ? This warning would not apply to people who were never saved in the first place.

For the record, I believe it is rare and difficult for a Christian to lose his salvation. But it is possible.