'Sola Caritas' Trumps 'Sola fide'

[ltwin]

You have very strong faith…in heretical protestant dogma.

 

[mcq72]

The verses from Ezekiel foreshadowing the new covenant promise clearly link baptism and the new birth just like the True Church has taught from the beginning.

Yes, clearly there is a link between new birth and baptism, just as there is a link between the eucharist and Calvary and this new covenant, as there is a link to good works and love.

The conditionality was set in old testament of righteousness thru the law, but none could satisfy it…yet the new has no such condition for justification, save for faith in the One who satisfied all conditions, and such justification by faith was also foreshadowed in OT.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Every time I see this thread title in my feed, I keep wanting to say “Sola Carnitas”. I love Mexican food.

 

[dopeyMS]

Yes, clearly there is a link between new birth and baptism, just as there is a link between the eucharist and Calvary and this new covenant, as there is a link to good works and love.

The conditionality was set in old testament of righteousness thru the law, but none could satisfy it…yet the new has no such condition for justification, save for faith in the One who satisfied all conditions, and such justification by faith was also foreshadowed in OT.

Christians have to keep the law, they have to keep the law of love or their profession is worthless.

 

[mcq72]

Christians have to keep the law,

Not as a condition for initial justification but as fruit after meeting the One who kept the law perfectly.

 

[De_Maria]

No, but we all think we have set aside “private” interpretation or that which is false.

You submit to an infalible Magisterium? If not, how have you set aside “private” interpretation? Because, to my way of seeing, you extoll it.

No, another classic example of the deluded thinking that a differing interpretation can only be due to rejection of certain scriptures.

They are deluded who can’t see that they reject certain Scriptures in order to maintain their heretical ideas. For example. James 2:24 clearly says “not by faith alone”. But Protestants maintain that it is precisely by faith alone. Thus, they reject Scripture’s teaching, which they claim to be the sole source or the highest authority or whatever, in order to maintain their deluded, contradictory and heretical teaching.

Not as a condition for initial justification but as fruit after meeting the One who kept the law perfectly.

Yes, as a condition for justification. Scripture says so. But, again, you must contradict Scripture to maintain your deluded ideas. Romans 2:13 doers of the law are justified.

 

[De_Maria]

Do you believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist?

We’ll see real quick if you have faith or not.

That is the ultimate test. It was for me.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

You’re very close to the Catholic Church in your doctrine. Now, there’s this little matter of “not by righteous works”. Is preaching a righteous work?

It is a good work, but I fail to see your point. The preacher doesn’t save us. The Gospel of Christ saves us.

So, not God, but the Gospel? By that I think you mean the hearing of the Gospel. The preacher’s voice.

And yet, are you not the one who says that Baptism doesn’t save us because it is a righteous work and the Word says, “not by righteous works”? But we say it is God who saves us, through Baptism. Not the water, not the priest who pours the water. But God, who works through the water to regenerate and renew us.

So, if God can use a man’s voice to save us and you don’t consider that a “righteous” work, what is the objection to Baptism?

We’re not talking about false gospels. We are talking about the proclaimed Gospel of Christ, which Paul says “is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16).

I think I asked and no one has answered. Is the set of people who claim to believe, the same set of people whom Jesus Christ identifies as believers? (i.e. Matt 7:21)

 

[ltwin]

And yet, are you not the one who says that Baptism doesn’t save us because it is a righteous work and the Word says, “not by righteous works”? But we say it is God who saves us, through Baptism. Not the water, not the priest who pours the water. But God, who works through the water to regenerate and renew us.

So, if God can use a man’s voice to save us and you don’t consider that a “righteous” work, what is the objection to Baptism?

I think you are assuming that is my objection to baptism. My disagreement with the Catholic understanding of baptism has nothing to do with it being a “righteous work”, though I suppose any Christian ritual could be abused in a “works righteousness” or legalistic fashion, yet that is something both Catholics and Protestants can fall into.

My disagreement with the Catholic Church is over baptismal regeneration–that baptism itself is the new birth and automatically frees us from sin.

I think I asked and no one has answered. Is the set of people who claim to believe, the same set of people whom Jesus Christ identifies as believers? (i.e. Matt 7:21)

There will always be people who claim to be Christians who are not. To believe that we are justified by faith is not the same as believing that everyone who claims to believe actually believes or will necessarily persevere until the end. We are justified by faith. Not everyone who professes faith in Christ will be saved.

 

[mcq72]

You submit to an infalible Magisterium

No.Have set it aside as private interpretation, just as you set my view aside as private interpretation.

They are deluded who can’t see that they reject certain Scriptures in order to maintain their heretical ideas. For example. James 2:24 clearly says “not by faith alone”. But Protestants maintain that it

And Paul clearly states not by works but by faith. Even your catechism states initial justification is free from works.

Again we do not reject James, as you do not reject Paul’s verse…we both synthesize the two differently…we both call the difference heretical/ private

Yes, as a condition for justification. Scripture says so. But, again, you must contradict Scripture to maintain your deluded ideas. Romans 2:13 doers of the law are justified.

Again, the OT law was partly viewed as condition for justification, and Paul’s statement reflects that but he goes on to say no one met the condition hence the new law of faith, in the One who met all conditions. Saints in OT understood this also.

To me it is heretical to think one must keep the Law perfectly as condition to salvation by Christ. It is putting new wine in old skins.

“Of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace. By Moses came the law (conditional), but grace and truth by Christ Jesus (unconditional)”
John1:16,17

 

[TULIPed]

Carne is the Latin root (“flesh”) for “Carne Asada”, and my personal favorite, Queso con Carne. More on topic, it’s also the root for “Incarnation”. I had a Youth leader one time who used to say that Jesus is God coming to us in his “meat suit”. That always made me think of Mexican food.

 

[fhansen]

It’s acknowledged that Protestants generally include the virtue of love as an important part of the Christian’s walk, with some individuals and denominations emphasizing it more and others less, but is it the central focus of the faith, and is salvation contingent in any manner on its existence and expression in and through us?

 

[mcq72]

but is it ( love) the central focus of the faith ,

Yes, in that the two central commandments have love as the verb… not too many other admonitions.

and is salvation contingent in any manner on its existence and expression in and through us?

No, but what is always contingent in salvation is abiding in Christ, who is love, and shed abroad in our hearts. So love is contingent on salvation.

To God be the glory.

PS thank you for charitable words of love in Protestant faith.

 

[ltwin]

This is what Calvinist Baptist John Piper says:

Obedience and love are the necessary confirmations that we are born again, truly united to Christ by faith alone. Here’s the way Paul says it: “God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth” (2 Thessalonians 2:13).

We are not justified through sanctification. Let me say it again: we are not justified through sanctification. But we are finally saved through sanctification — that is, through a real change in our hearts and minds and lives without which we will not see the Lord.

Will We Be Finally ‘Saved’ by Faith Alone? | Desiring God

The only kind of faith that counts for justification is the kind that produces love — the kind that bears the fruit of love.

Does God Really Save Us by Faith Alone? | Desiring God

 

[TULIPed]

I would say that God’s love - manifested in Jesus Christ - is the central focus of the faith. We love - or are able to truly love - because He loved us first. Agape love is active and sacrificial. Agape love says, “You first, me second”. The Holy Spirit in our lives enables us to love with agape love that is pleasing to God. We do this out of thankfulness - in response - to what Christ did for us. We’re able to do it because of the power of the Holy Spirit.

Sacrificial, active love is evidence - the fruit - of true, active faith in Jesus Christ. How does this look? Take tithing for example. It’s one thing to tithe because we have to. We have to pay taxes. What’s the difference between giving because we have to, and giving joyfully? How do we give sacrificially and do it joyfully? Is not that an oxymoronic concept?

I would argue that the only way we’re able to truly give joyfully is if the Holy Spirit empowers us to do so. In fact, I would say that the level of our joyful, sacrificial giving is a tangible indication of the presence of faith in our lives.

 

[De_Maria]

My disagreement with the Catholic Church is over baptismal regeneration–that baptism itself is the new birth and automatically frees us from sin.

Why? It’s very clear in Scripture that it is the case. Do you see any link at all, between Baptism and new birth?

For example:

Romans 6:4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Is newness of life, new birth?

Do you see any link between Baptism and freedom from sin. For example:

Acts 22:16And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

There will always be people who claim to be Christians who are not. To believe that we are justified by faith is not the same as believing that everyone who claims to believe actually believes or will necessarily persevere until the end. We are justified by faith. Not everyone who professes faith in Christ will be saved.

That’s how I interpret this verse.

John 6:40 “For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

All who believe in Christ will be saved. But not all who profess to believe in Christ, actually do believe in Him. Only He can judge true faith.

Do you agree? Or do you understand it differently?

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

You submit to an infalible Magisterium

No.Have set it aside as private interpretation, just as you set my view aside as private interpretation.

That feels like you’re sidestepping my question. You said,

No, but we all think we have set aside “private” interpretation or that which is false.

Which I thought you meant, “none of us think we are leaning upon our own interpretation.”

So, I’m asking. If you don’t lean upon your own understanding. Upon whose understanding do you lean?

As for your response, how do you set the Catholic Magisterium aside as personal interpretation since the Church’s Teachings came down to us from Jesus Christ?

And Paul clearly states not by works but by faith.

Where does St. Paul say it’s by faith alone?

Even your catechism states initial justification is free from works.

The Catechism also says its free from faith. Nothing merits the call to conversion. Not even faith.

Again we do not reject James, as you do not reject Paul’s verse…we both synthesize the two differently…we both call the difference heretical/ private

Yeah, you reject it. You blatantly contradict it. St. James says, “Not by faith alone”. But you say, “by faith alone”. That’s a blatant contradiction.

Again, the OT law was partly viewed as condition for justification, and Paul’s statement reflects that but he goes on to say no one met the condition hence the new law of faith, in the One who met all conditions. Saints in OT understood this also.

To me it is heretical to think one must keep the Law perfectly as condition to salvation by Christ. It is putting new wine in old skins.

Who added the word “perfectly”? Neither I nor Scripture says “perfectly”. So, where does that come from?

“Of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace. By Moses came the law (conditional), but grace and truth by Christ Jesus (unconditional)”
John1:16,17

[/QUOTE]
That doesn’t even make sense. Conditional and unconditional doesn’t fit there. The Law of Moses was given to us, unconditionally. Grace and truth were given to us, unconditionally. But both the Law and the Grace and Truth which Jesus Christ gave us, contain conditions we must meet if we are to be saved.

Exodus 20:6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

John 14:21He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

 

[ltwin]

Do you see any link at all, between Baptism and new birth?

I would agree that baptism is a sign of our union with Christ in his death and resurrection and cleansing from sin. Baptism is part of becoming a disciple, and I believe that baptism as a means of grace even functions to strengthen our faith. However, the spiritual realities signified by baptism can be entered into only by faith. There are people who have been baptized who have not placed their faith and trust in Jesus Christ and have not obeyed him. How can they be said to have newness of life? And there are people who have placed their fiath in Christ who have not yet been baptized. How are they not born again?

For example:

Romans 6:4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Yes, Paul does say here some strong things about baptism. In the context of the rest of Romans and the rest of Paul’s writings, I don’t think we can say that water baptism unites us to Christ or becomes the means by which we participate in his death and resurrection.

Paul is pretty clear that it is faith that unites us to Christ and there are passages where he clearly connects the reality of baptism to faith.

Colossians 2:11-12: “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.”

Here both circumcision and baptism are used to describe the same thing. It is a “circumcision made without hands” and a burial with Christ in baptism “through faith.” Both Christ’s baptism and his circumcision are realities entered into by faith that are shown by our choosing to be baptized.

Galatians 3:26-27: “for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

Here Paul says we are children of God through faith, and then he references baptism as an acting out of this faith. When we are baptized, we are choosing to clothe ourselves in Christ. This only makes sense if baptism involves a personal act of faith.

Acts 22:16And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins , calling on the name of the Lord.

Even here there is the expectation that the person being baptized will personally appeal to God.

All who believe in Christ will be saved. But not all who profess to believe in Christ, actually do believe in Him. Only He can judge true faith.

Do you agree? Or do you understand it differently?

I agree. I also believe we can have assurance that we are in Christ, but we have to be careful that we are not indulging in a false sense of security (1 Cor. 10:12).

 

[fhansen]

My disagreement with the Catholic Church is over baptismal regeneration–that baptism itself is the new birth and automatically frees us from sin.

Baptism is also called the “sacrament of faith”, being the first public, formal profession of faith and one that Christ commanded. And all sacraments, for that matter, require faith in order for them to be efficacious.

 

[fhansen]

“Of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace. By Moses came the law (conditional), but grace and truth by Christ Jesus (unconditional)”
John1:16,17

And this is one of the issues. The New Covenant never does away with the obligation for man to be righteous. In fact, it provides the very means, the only right means, to achieve the righteousness that man was orignally made for but cannot possibly realize to the extent that he’s unreconciled with and therefore still apart from God.

Either way both covenants have conditions, the Old being that man obey/fulfill the Law, the New that man have faith which introduces him into relationship with God and the life of grace/the Spirit that ensues and that then frees/enables him to obey as he was created to. Faith is both a gift and a choice, the right choice, and therefore a condition that man must meet in order to be justified. If justification were unconditional then salvation should be universal.