Someone can lose their salvation?

[paul_c]

I think this is not a correct assessment of moondweller. I think he is quite clear that it is essential to live out the faith. He just thinks about this from a different perspective than Catholics. He is not one of those deformed offspring of the Reformation who believes that once he is saved, he can do whatever he wants and it will not affect his salvation. Holiness before God is clearly a value for him, and he takes his personal sanctification very seriously.

I agree with you about Moondweller 100%. He seems to be a very good man. He clearly recognizes that the saved will do good works and he is highly motivated by the love of Christ. He unfortunately has two misconceptions about the Catholic postion. He thinks we undervalue the Cross because we believe that men have responsibility for their own salvation. And he thinks that responsibility means that Catholics believe they can work their way into heaven without faith or God’s grace . I have been trying four 4 months on multiple threads to disuade him from those views…

 

[guanophore]

Israel was obligated, by covenant, to perform the works demanded by the Mosaic Law. But that covenant, made with national Israel (which included the Decalogue), ended at the cross of Christ

It seems that there is some blending here of the Levitical law and the moral law. Jesus clearly affirmed the moral law represented it in the decalogue.

and now only "*{the} **righteousness of God through faith*** in Jesus Christ for all those **who believe**" remains.

The truth is, moon, God’s plan of salvation has not changed. It was the same “that side of the cross” as it is on "this side’. Humans have always been saved by grace, through faith.

IOW, the only righteousness that God accepts is that which comes through FAITH *alone* in Christ *alone*.

ou are adding words to scripture.

How could a person under the old covenenant(before Christ) be righteous and blameless before God? Or do you believe this was not possible?

 God Himself provides that righteousness (*which is what **justification*** means) through **faith in Jesus Christ** *alone*, and that through His redemptive work on the cross.  Through that work *alone*.  For this reason it is said to be *gifted* according to GRACE (Rom. 3:24).

This is what the Catholic Church has always taught about initial justification. I don’t understand why you keep arguing this point. We all agree on it.

Paul's theological logic resounds clearly in the heart of all who have turned to Christ by faith alone:Rom 11:6 "**But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace**."His gospel in a nutshell:Rom 4:25 - 5:2 "{He} who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and **was raised because of our justification**. Therefore, **having been** justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our access **by faith** into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God."

This is Catholic teaching, written by a Catholic, moon. I don’t know why that is so difficult for you to accept. I think the erroneous notions of what you have been given to believe about Catholicism prevent you from seeing the truth.

Those who continue to work FOR salvation stumble over the simplicity of the gospel message of faith in Christ alone, failing to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (true believers, lit., holy ones).

I agree. This is a reference, by the way, to the Sacred Tradition given to the Church, the Tradition that produced the scripture,a nd which continues to be preserved by the Spirit in the Catholic Church from that day until this.

Anyway, there is a big difference between working OUT what is within, and working ON salvation. Salvation is a free gift. We work out what is at work in us. The contribution of human participation is part of the graced result of salvation. We are afforded to work out our salvation in fear and trembling. These are not divine elements, but human ones. We participate, we contribute.

What did Cornelius DO, prior to meeting Peter, that helped himself to become saved?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hebrews 3:1-6
Therefore, holy brothers, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest whom we confess. 2He was faithful to the one who appointed him, just as Moses was faithful in all God’s house. 3Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself. 4For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything. 5Moses was faithful as a servant in all God’s house, testifying to what would be said in the future. 6But Christ is faithful as a son over God’s house. And we are his house, ***if ***we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast

Hebrews 3:14
We have come to share in Christ ***if ***we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first.

If? If???

So much for eternal security and assurance of salvation.

 

[guanophore]

You don’t agree with any of it, and you do believe you can be saved by works. That’s what you’re arguing for.

In one of paul c’s posts he said something about you being charitable and open minded or something to that extent. I guffawed, and thought to myself, well, he just has not read enough of moon’s posts yet!

This one is a good example. You are here insisting that you understand and know better than Catholics do what they beleive and profess. You have placed your own understanding above the testimony of others. This is a selfish act.

I will concede that it certainly does seem that way to you, but you are not stating what you think, feel or believe. Instead you are telling others what they believe, in spite of their insistence to the contrary.

  It's his *works* that are appraised, not him (see 1 Cor. 3:10-15).

I understand what you are saying here, but catholics see that a person is known by their fruit, and if one does not act in love, then one does not do the will of God. To us, this means that one is not “in Christ”. You may say that one was never “in Christ” in the first place. Both of us will agree that disobedience and rebellion is not the will of God.

Translated: Salvation by works.

Translated: The insignificance of the cross.

What you define is salvation by works and the impotence of the cross as a sin sacrifice.

These are your perceptions. What you are doing is running what we are trying to tell you about Catholic Teaching through your intractible filters “transalting” it according to your misconceived ideas about the Apostolic Faith.

All discussions for you end this way.

 

[guanophore]

Examine the two statements carefully, Paul, and you’ll see what I stated is vastly different from what you say describes Catholic soteriology. The former is salvation, past, present and future, based totally on God’s infinite grace through faith. Yours, the latter, is salvation, past present, future, conditionally based on human works.

No, this is a misperception on your part. Human works can have no basis for salvation. The only salvation is through Christ. The 'basis" of salvation does not change, just because we call sanctification part of salvation (except in your mind).

God is at work in us to will and to do. This is not “human based” but God based. God’s grace is infinitely available to all who call upon His name. If we stubbornly and rebelliously refuse to call, then there is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved.

 

[guanophore]

Moondweller,
Why can’t you work with the way we define our beliefs, instead of constantly TRANSLATING our words into what you think we believe? I completely disagree with your translations and have told you so on multiple occasions. Can you not grasp the differences between what we say and what you think we say?

Absolutely not.

Do you really think that the only way the cross could be significant is if we were saved once and for all time? Isn’t it just as significant if it allowed us to be saved. period. Even if we could subsequently lose our salvation?

Yes. If he beleived otherwise, he would have to become Catholic.

 

[guanophore]

Question:

Orthodox, Rabbinical Judaism considers a Jew no longer a Jew when he believes in Jesus Christ for salvation. Do Catholics also consider someone no longer a Catholic when he turns completely away from works and embraces, by faith (alone), the Person and sacrificial work of Jesus Christ, alone, for his salvation?

Since Catholicism does not teach that we can obtain salvation by works, I think the answer to such a question would be that a person who thought this never understood what the Catholic Church believed and taught in the first place.

That being the case, when such a one finally does grasp the fundamental necessity of salvation by grace through faith, then the graces that were infused in their baptism have borne good fruit, and they have entered a stronger walk with God.

If one studies the Apostolic Teaching, one can easily see that Christ was never “alone”. He commissioned His apostles to teach “all that I have commanded”, which included a Church. He also taught, as did the Apostles, that faith is never alone. Saving faith is faith that works. Faith that hopes and loves.

 

[guanophore]

I suggested nothing of the sort.  I was asking a question about works, salvation and one's identity as a Catholic.I do indeed.  But my question is about a Catholic who turns away from works as a basis for his *salvation* completely

Such a person is not “CAtholic” in faith. Such a one may have been baptized Catholic, but clearly never understood the faith into which he was brought.

The Catholic Church does not teach works as a basis for his salvation, and every good Catholic SHOULD turn completely away from this. I would say such a one is a much better Catholic once they realize this.

and instead turns, by faith, to the Person and finished, sacrificial work of Jesus Christ alone. Is he then considered non-Catholic?

He would be considered a most true Catholic! this is what Catholics do every day at Mass.

Would he be considered "*anathema*?"Surely not.

Really? I think maybe you believe, surely, otherwise!

But that’s not context of my question.The context of my question was not demonstrating one’s faith through works, but turning completely away from works as having any basis for one’s salvation and embracing, by faith, the Person and sacrificial work Jesus Christ alone.Does turning away from works to faith in Christ and His sacrificial work alone for salvation oppose your church and qualify for excommunication? Would you consider this person a non-Catholic and to have lost his salvation?

No, such a person would be considered to have a weak understanding of the faith - a babe, if you will.

The “works” that we do by grace, through faith, are rooted in the work of Christ on the cross. Without such work, we cannot enter into the deeds that God has prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

I doubt that any of this will break through the thick wall of denial you have built around yourself, moon, but I am writing this for the lukers, so that those who are reading this thread that have these same questions will see that your perceptions of the Catholic faith are erroneous.

 

[guanophore]

I agree with you about Moondweller 100%. He seems to be a very good man. He clearly recognizes that the saved will do good works and he is highly motivated by the love of Christ. He unfortunately has two misconceptions about the Catholic postion. He thinks we undervalue the Cross because we believe that men have responsibility for their own salvation. And he thinks that responsibility means that Catholics believe they can work their way into heaven without faith or God’s grace . I have been trying four 4 months on multiple threads to disuade him from those views…

Well, keep praying and posting. If you look back, this has been going on since he came here a year and a half ago. Your posts are excellent, and will benefit the lurkers who have the same teachings leading them astray, but are perhaps more open to learn. His agenda here is just to convince us that we have missed the point.

 

[paul_c]

Moondweller,
I understand that your major intellectual dilemma with the Catholic position is , " How can man exercise his free will in gaining salvation without imparing God’s sovreignty."

Well, the fact is, nothing that man can do impairs God’s sovreignty. God is all powerful and his will will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven.

But that’s the part you are missing. Its God’s will for the elect to choose to come to him and to do his will of their own volition. There continues to be debate in CAtholic circles between the Molinists and the Thomists about how God actually accomplishes his plan while allowing Free will. In the end, whether he does this by the way he makes each individual or by the motivations he gives them in life or by some other fashion is unimportant. What is important is that as part of his plan, man chooses his ultimate destiny through his faith and actions and that man’s choices will be in perfect harmony with God’s ultimate plan.

Once you grasp that it is God’s will for us to choose sanctity or condemnation, the rest falls into place. To choose sanctity means to live a life of faith, hope and charity (love). If you fail to live that life, then you are condemned. If you fall from the path, you can be reconciled to God through the sacrament of reconciliation, because God loves the repentent sinner. As you have read in Luke’s Gospel (15:7), there is more joy in Heaven over 1 repentent sinner, than over 100 righteous people who have no need to repent.

 

[moondweller]

Moondweller, it seems to me that the Catholic sotierology truly has a past, present and future, whereas your only has a past.

Not true. Read it again.

Past: The believer at the time of faith was completely delivered from his lost estate, cleansed, forgiven, justified, born of God, clothed in the merit of Christ, freed from all condemnation and safe for evermore, according to divine grace through Jesus Christ.

Present: Presently he’s being saved from the dominion of sin by being kept by “this grace in which he now stands” (Rom. 5:1-2) through the High Priestly work of the resurrected Christ; His intercessory work and Advocacy in heaven on the believer’s behalf (Heb. 7:25: 1 Jn. 2:1).

Future: In the future he’ll be saved from the presence of sin completely when by grace he’ll be presented in his glorified state, bodily (Phil. 3:20-21).

So how can you say there’s only a past? The true believer is saved, being saved and will be saved - all according to divine GRACE through faith in Jesus Christ alone.

Once you are saved, in your construct, nothing more matters and therefore nothing more needs be done. And that’s the problem.

It’s true there’s nothing more that needs to be done FOR salvation (Christ did & does it all), but that’s hardly a “problem.” Much still matters. There’s still the preaching of gospel of Christ in one’s generation that more may be saved by grace through faith in Christ alone. There’s the personal, spiritual growth of the individual believer unto maturity (2 Pet. 3:18; 1 Pet. 1:1-11), that he might glorify God in his body (1 Cor. 6:20). There’s teaching the Word of God and ministering to the needs of other saints, to name only a few. There’s lots to be done.

What is the point of life in your theology, once someone has been saved? Once you are guaranteed your spot in Heaven, how can anything else have meaning?

That’s like asking, once you’re born what’s the point of living?

 

[moondweller]

ncgolf:

the partial hardening is partly of God’s doing … it is part of the plan but why this is happening is indeed mysterious.

No it’s not. Paul says he doesn’t want them uninformed of this mystery. So he reveals it to them. It does remain a mystery, however, to those who allegorize the prophetic Scriptures and replace national Israel with the church.

The warning of this verse is real … Verse 20-21 That is so. They were broken off because of unbelief, but you are there because of faith. So do not become haughty, but stand in awe. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, (perhaps) he will not spare you either.

Yes. And He did not spare them because of what? Their UNBELIEF (vs. 20). This is the warning to Gentiledom.

Scripture reveals three classes of humanity (since Pentecost): (1) Jews (unbelievers); (2) Gentiles (unbelievers); (3) the church of Christ (all true believers, individually called out from both Jews and Gentiles).

Now compare vss. 20-21 to Paul’s teaching in Romans 9:Rom 9:30-32 "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at {that} law. Why? Because {they did} not {pursue it} by faith, but as though {it were} by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone,"Sound familiar?

No we do not because of his baptism that person carries the mark on His soul of being grafted unto Christ … that cannot be undone.

“Grafted unto Christ” with a “mark on his soul” is an unbiblical term so I don’t know what you’re talking about. Nevertheless, if this can’t be undone, then you’re talking what? Eternal security? Or will there be those who are grafted unto Christ with marks on their souls in Hell?

But I would say the person left an uncatechized Catholic and remains an uncatechized Catholic in whatever faith the person turns to.

What does “uncatechized” mean?

 

[moondweller]

Moondweller,
I understand that your major intellectual dilemma with the Catholic position is , " How can man exercise his free will in gaining salvation without imparing God’s sovreignty."

Not at all my dear friend. If you read my posts you’ll see my arguments concerning salvation by grace through faith always stem from the cross. I believe in God’s sovereignty over all His creation, but I don’t argue from that standpoint. In Scripture the doctrines of divine grace are always directly connected to the cross of Christ. It’s what the power of divine grace is based on. Understand the cross, what was accomplished there, once for all, and you’ll begin to grasp GRACE in all its glory - to the glory of God. But you must begin with the cross.

 

[moondweller]

The Catholic Church does not teach works as a basis for his salvation, and every good Catholic SHOULD turn completely away from this. I would say such a one is a much better Catholic once they realize this.

So then you’re saying a very good Catholic should embrace the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith alone.

 

[moondweller]

Moondweller, I wanted to point something out to you about Catholic sotierology.

The first step is to be baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

It is entirely possible that you personally may have a valid baptism in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church.

From that point on, you had sufficient sanctifying Grace to be saved unless you turned away from God through Sin.

This is where being a member of the Catholic Church is most helpful.

First of all, it provide the fullest truth on what it takes to do God’s will and stay in Grace.

Secondly, if you happen to fall from Grace, it can sacramentally heal you and reconcile you to God

You should seriously consider this…

Thank you Paul. But, seriously, I don’t see sin as the issue of salvation. God dealt with ALL our sins judicially, once for all, 2000 years ago when Christ Himself bore them on the cross and died in our stead (1 Pet. 2:24).

I understand the issue of true Christianity to be that of belief or unbelief. As Paul stated it to the Philippian jailer: “BELIEVE in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved…” (Acts 16:31).Hence, the issue is not sin but belief.

Based on the Scriptures, I understand that no one will go to Hell because of sins, but because of unbelief. As Jesus said:John 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins."IOW, believe and you will not, cannot, die in sin. Christ, our sin-bearing substitute guarantees it.Rom 4:23-25 "Now not for his sake (Abraham’s) only was it written that it was credited to him, but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, {He} who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification."The issue now being faith in what Christ has DONE!

 

[moondweller]

Quote:
Originally Posted by moondweller
God Himself provides that righteousness (which is what justification means) through faith in Jesus Christ alone, and that through His redemptive work on the cross. Through that work alone. For this reason it is said to be gifted according to GRACE (Rom. 3:24).

Quote:
This is what the Catholic Church has always taught about ]initial justification. I don’t understand why you keep arguing this point. We all agree on it.

We’d agree if you’d leave out your word "initial."

What did Cornelius DO, prior to meeting Peter, that helped himself to become saved?

Nothing! I know his prayers were heard and his alms were remembered before God, but neither of these contributed to his salvation. Nor does the text say or imply it. This is what Peter said to Cornelius, his family and friends:Acts 10:43 "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins."Prayers and alms could not forgive Cornelius’ sins. Because Cornelius believed in Him, Cornelius did not die in his sins; he was saved by grace through faith alone.

 

[ncgolf]

No it’s not. Paul says he doesn’t want them uninformed of this mystery. So he reveals it to them. It does remain a mystery, however, to those who allegorize the prophetic Scriptures and replace national Israel with the church.Yes. And He did not spare them because of what? Their UNBELIEF (vs. 20). This is the warning to Gentiledom.

Your timing is off … they have been grafted … so in my mind baptized … grafted onto the tree. Paul is speaking to the members of the Church not the unbelieving Gentiles but the believing Gentiles. The warning was not for the unbelievers but the believers.

You would like the warnings to always go the unbelievers for in your theology that’s all who will need it but that is not true.

Scripture reveals three classes of humanity (since Pentecost): (1) Jews (unbelievers); (2) Gentiles (unbelievers); (3) the church of Christ (all true believers, individually called out from both Jews and Gentiles).

Still true today … the qualifier true believer is an odd one … as opposed to what … false believers … well then are they not believers. I imagine you put that precisely for us Catholics … who you think believe but are not true believers as yourself. You write your righteousness in statements like those. Believe me … your distancing us from yourself is very evident.

Now compare vss. 20-21 to Paul’s teaching in Romans 9:Rom 9:30-32 "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at {that} law. Why? Because {they did} not {pursue it} by faith, but as though {it were} by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone,“Sound familiar?”

I am not the one with the sore toe.

Grafted unto Christ" with a “mark on his soul” is an unbiblical term so I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Nevertheless, if this can’t be undone, then you’re talking what? Eternal security? Or will there be those who are grafted unto Christ with marks on their souls in Hell?What does “uncatechized” mean?

The CCC 1272
Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation.83 Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.

We are sealed … both in Baptism and in the sacrament of Confirmation.

From the CCC paragraph 5
Catechesis is an education in the faith of children, young people and adults which includes especially the teaching of Christian doctrine imparted, generally speaking, in an organic and systematic way, with a view to initiating the hearers into the fullness of Christian life.

So many who do leave either did not recieve proper catechesis or left for other reasons. Uncatechized (sp) means simply untaught, unfamiliar … you get the picture.

 

[paul_c]

Originally Posted by paul c
Moondweller, it seems to me that the Catholic sotierology truly has a past, present and future, whereas your only has a past.

Not true. Read it again.

Past: The believer at the time of faith was completely delivered from his lost estate, cleansed, forgiven, justified, born of God, clothed in the merit of Christ, freed from all condemnation and safe for evermore, according to divine grace through Jesus Christ.

Present: Presently he’s being saved from the dominion of sin by being kept by “this grace in which he now stands” (Rom. 5:1-2) through the High Priestly work of the resurrected Christ; His intercessory work and Advocacy in heaven on the believer’s behalf (Heb. 7:25: 1 Jn. 2:1).

Future: In the future he’ll be saved from the presence of sin completely when by grace he’ll be presented in his glorified state, bodily (Phil. 3:20-21).

So how can you say there’s only a past? The true believer is saved, being saved and will be saved - all according to divine GRACE through faith in Jesus Christ alone.It’s true there’s nothing more that needs to be done FOR salvation (Christ did & does it all), but that’s hardly a “problem.” Much still matters. There’s still the preaching of gospel of Christ in one’s generation that more may be saved by grace through faith in Christ alone. There’s the personal, spiritual growth of the individual believer unto maturity (2 Pet. 3:18; 1 Pet. 1:1-11), that he might glorify God in his body (1 Cor. 6:20). There’s teaching the Word of God and ministering to the needs of other saints, to name only a few. There’s lots to be done.

Moondweller, this is very enlightening. Let me paraphrase to see if I got your points correctly:

• WE are saved (justified) at the time of belief
  

  We would modify this to say you are INITIALLY saved at the time of baptism. We would say that this is a gratutitous gift from God. I think you would agree on this point, although you might say that Faith is required on the part of the individual

• Following justification, a period of sanctification follows, where the “elect” are being saved from sin.

we would absolutely agree with this. However, we would add the concept that man can freely choose to turn from God and not be sanctificed, but in fact be condemned for this lack of sanctification.

• at his death (future) , the elect will be saved completely from sin and presented in a glorified body to heaven

we agree with this entirely. We would add to you this the concept of ACTUAL cleanliness through repentence and purification (penance and after death purgatory), where I think you are thinking more of a LEGAL cleanliness through faith alone.

.

You see, we are not so very far apart. You just lack a few of the elements of truth, the most fundamental being that you fail to recognize the role of man’s free will in salvation and that God willed man to come to him of man’s own accord, and not through the forced adherance to God’s will. God is capable of making man’s will conform to his own and God wants the willing in heaven, not the forced.

 

[paul_c]

Thank you Paul. But, seriously, I don’t see sin as the issue of salvation. God dealt with ALL our sins judicially, once for all, 2000 years ago when Christ Himself bore them on the cross and died in our stead (1 Pet. 2:24).

I understand the issue of true Christianity to be that of belief or unbelief. As Paul stated it to the Philippian jailer: “BELIEVE in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved…” (Acts 16:31).Hence, the issue is not sin but belief.

Based on the Scriptures, I understand that no one will go to Hell because of sins, but because of unbelief. As Jesus said:John 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins."IOW, believe and you will not, cannot, die in sin. Christ, our sin-bearing substitute guarantees it.Rom 4:23-25 "Now not for his sake (Abraham’s) only was it written that it was credited to him, but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, {He} who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification."The issue now being faith in what Christ has DONE!

No, clearly people go to hell because of Sin. Look again at Matthew 25: 31-46. You see the need for sanctification, that would not be necessary if sin wasn’t important. As you know, sin is repellent to God, and we will die in our sins if we don’t repent.

It is Satan’s goal to make everyone think that sin is inconsequential. That is his main lie. I suspect that deep down you don’t believe that sin is inconsequential and that you personally try to avoid sin. Isn’t this true?

This is not to diminish the importance of Faith. Intent is a key component of all our actions. If the intent of our good works is for the glory of God, they will sanctify us and keep us in the state of grace… If the intent of our good works is self-centered, it has no value in salvation.

Finally, lets go back to your quote,

John 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.

So lets see how this harmonizes with what I said. Do you see that you need to believe for your works to be sanctifying.
And do you also see, that if you don’t, you will die in your sin. This does not say that sin is unimportant. In fact, it says that you will die IN your sins if you haven’t be sanctified.

 

[paul_c]

Originally Posted by paul c
Moondweller,
I understand that your major intellectual dilemma with the Catholic position is , " How can man exercise his free will in gaining salvation without imparing God’s sovreignty

Not at all my dear friend. If you read my posts you’ll see my arguments concerning salvation by grace through faith always stem from the cross. I believe in God’s sovereignty over all His creation, but I don’t argue from that standpoint. In Scripture the doctrines of divine grace are always directly connected to the cross of Christ. It’s what the power of divine grace is based on. Understand the cross, what was accomplished there, once for all, and you’ll begin to grasp GRACE in all its glory - to the glory of God. But you must begin with the cross.

Of course the doctrines of divine grace are directly connected to the cross. We all agree that without the cross, there is no hope of salvation. And we are completely in agreement that you must begin with the cross. Where we diverge is that you believe that salvation process actually ends there as well, through the simple belief in its saving power. You seem to see sanctification as a separate activity that might give you a “higher place in heaven,” but does not effect your actual ability to be saved. We on the otherhand, see that sanctification is required for entrance into heaven and therefore is coincident and integral with the ongoing justification process. And sanctification requires man to choose to be sanctified through faith demonstrated by works. Remember, the theological virtues, of faith, hope and love and as St. paul preaches, the greatest of these is Love… If man does not practice these virtues, he will be condemned to die in his sins.