Split and Edited Title: Catholic Vs Baptist Soteriology Discussion

[OneForTruth]

Luther did not believe in “once saved, always saved,” but in fact he did believe in a doctrine of predestination essentially identical to Calvin’s (the main difference was that Luther did not preach it, and a second difference was that Calvin made election far more central by teaching, in contrast to Luther, that only the elect ever experienced regeneration–the original version of “once saved, always saved”).

Edwin

If he believed in predesitination, he believed in once saved always saved. The elect are infallibly saved…once justified by faith, the work of God will continue through to final glorification!

Ro 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Php 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

 

[OneForTruth]

But doesn’t Catholic theology distinguish quite sharply between faith and charity and claim (in contrast to traditional Protestantism) that you can have supernatural faith without also having charity, so that charity must “form” and perfect a faith that is dead in and of itself?

Edwin

Not possible…love flows from faith. Once a person puts their faith and trust in Christ as Lord and Savior, the one who is the “end of the law for righteousness”…the fulfillment of the law, love will flow from this faith…

1Jo 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

Love flows from faith (in other words, we will keep the commandments which is summed up in - love God, love others).

1Jo 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

Love is the goal - faith is the source…

James 2 basically says that if you find the two spearated from eachother, you have dead, useless, demonic faith.

 

[mgrfin]

Not really ! A person comes to love God after God has saved him and they realize what a great gift God has given them

You didn’t answer the question. How can an unsaved person have faith (Luther definition) in Jesus Christ?

mgrfin

Assumption - Introit
A great sign appeared in heaven:
a woman clothed with the sun, and the
moon was under her feet, and upon her head
a crown of twelve stars. Apoc. 12,1

 

[allischalmers]

You didn’t answer the question. How can an unsaved person have faith (Luther definition) in Jesus Christ?

mgrfin

Assumption - Introit
A great sign appeared in heaven:
a woman clothed with the sun, and the
moon was under her feet, and upon her head
a crown of twelve stars. Apoc. 12,1

It is a gift from God

 

[mgrfin]

Not Really!! Faith is love of God. All have the same opportunity to come to love God, not a select few.

Your theology is all confused. You run from one concept to another, regardless of whether they clash or are ‘non sequiturs’.

Faith is not love of God. Charity is love of God. More exactly, charity is the virtue by which we love God above all things for His own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God.

Faith and hope will cease once we have attained heaven, for we cannot believe what we see, and we cannot hope for what we already have; but charity remains even in heaven, where we will love God whom we possess.

Faith is the virtue by which we firmly believe all the truths God has revealed, on the word of God revealing them, who can neither deceive or be deceived.

Hope is the virtue by which we firmly trust that God, who is all-powerful and faithful to His promises will in His mercy give us eternal happiness and the means to obtain it.

Charity is the queen of all the virtues. It unites man to God most perfectly and most permanently in the bonds of love.

Even the devils have faith.

Paul, in 1 Cor 13:1-7, should clear it up for you. Paul also says that the good works of charity are absolutely necessary for salvation.

And my favorite Pauline passage: "And now there remains faith, hope and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity.
1 Cor 13:13

mgrfin

Feast of the Assumption
Ant at Comm Luc. 1:48
“All generations shall call me
blessed: because he who is mighty
has done great things for me.”

Alleluia, Alleluia.
Did I hear someone say “Amen”.
Say “amen”.
AMEN

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The heart of the Protestant lie is that mortal sin does not exist.

It makes for an easier more comfortable faith.

Everything else is just a shell game that Satan plays so that people won’t confront the real issue and that is Mortal sin.

As long as people don’t do as Paul commanded and “Work out their salvation in fear and trembling” then in all likelihood they will die in a state of Mortal sin and go to Hell.

Luther had to get rid of the fact of Mortal sin to make his own faith easier!

The “Faith Alone” part of justification was invented by Satan for that express purpose.

As long as people thought that “Faith Alone” justified and as long as they didn’t believe in the concept of mortal sin then they could have a comfortable faith and deceive themselves thinking that such a thing was possible and Satan could laugh all the way to Hell dragging their souls with him!

For the rest of your life when you hear “Justification by Faith Alone” just think “Denial of Mortal sin so faith can be easier” but most especially remeber the fact that the only place that the bible puts the words “faith” and “alone” together is when it says that we are Not saved by “Faith Alone”!

Then just ask yourslef as people go round and round like a dog chasing its tail arguing over predestination and some things that are simply unknowable if Satan is really laughing because the main part that is important–that of the Reality and Fact of Mortal sin is forgotten!

Since Mortal sin is a reality Faith Must complete itself in works–for if it doesn’t then it NECESSARILY results in mortal sin because it is a Mortal sin to not do the will of God!

And the fact that someone might have faith and immediately die on their death bed and be saved does not in anyway mean that that is not the exception and not the rule.

The rule for most of us is we must Cooperate with God and let faith complete itself NOT in doing “Good deeds” or "Works of the law"but certainly let Faith complete itself in doing works that God wills us to do!

To not do so is to Mortally sin and only one mortal sin will send us to Hell!

That is the reality that Luther and Protestantism had to get rid of to make faith Easier and Comfortable!

And it is a lie to say that Genuine faith will Always result in Genuine works.

It may do so many times but God gives us freedom of will and at any time we can raise and impediment to grace and not Let Faith complete itself in a work that not us but God will us to do!

That is mortal sin! Without confession of it and unexpected sudden death that equals Hell!

No Protestant will admit that reality. And that is why Catholics should always strive to tell our Protestant brothers and sisters the truth because we love them and don’t want them to fall into just one mortal sin where “Faith Alone” won’t be good enough and will damn them to Hell!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Lutheranism, and Calvinism… I feel a deep shadow come over my soul when either concept is mentioned.

I feel a shadow come over my mind when OSAS is mentioned. But I agree with you the shadow comes over my soul when predestination is mentioned. I think of a world of Hannibal Lector reprobates.

 

[Contarini]

If he believed in predesitination, he believed in once saved always saved.

You are completely wrong here. For a thousand years in the Western Church people believed in predestination “ante praevisa merita” (i.e., God’s predestination of certain people for salvation is logically prior to their actions and thus is not based on His foreknowledge of those actions) but never believed in once saved always saved. This was an invention of one of the early Reformed theologians–maybe Martin Bucer (I need to get working on the paper I’m delivering in late October on this very subject). It was not believed by Augustine, or Aquinas, or Luther, all of whom believed in “predestination” in the sense I have defined above.

You may think that this is a mistaken view, but there is no getting around the historical fact that this is what these theologians believed.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I feel a shadow come over my mind when OSAS is mentioned. But I agree with you the shadow comes over my soul when predestination is mentioned. I think of a world of Hannibal Lector reprobates.

There’s a big difference. The normal way of reading someone like Lecter (at least this is how Roger Ebert talks about it) is that he is determined by his genes or circumstances or whatever. That is indeed a depressing notion, but that is not the traditional Augustinian/Calvinist doctrine of predestination (though Calvin came closer than more orthodox theologians to this damnable nonsense, and Jonathan Edwards, alas, came closer yet, if I don’t misunderstand him gravely).

Edwin

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If the Elect is unknowable to men shouldn’t they Work out their salvation in fear and trembling"?

And if they must fear and if they must tremble isn’t that Proof positibve that “Faith alone” isn’t good enough.

If it really is what would be the purpose of fearing and trembling?

Why is it that no Protestant in the world will answer that question?

If a Protestant admitted the reality of mortal sin wouldn’t they have to admit that “Faith alone” could not be good enough?

Isn’t that the crux of the whole matter?

 

[Contarini]

The heart of the Protestant lie is that mortal sin does not exist.

It makes for an easier more comfortable faith.

In some versions. But in others it really doesn’t. Calvinism in most of its historical forms is more demanding and more anxiety-filled than Catholicism. So is Wesleyanism as I experienced it, although Wesleyans do essentially believe in mortal sin.

In practice, Luther snuck mortal sin back through the back door by saying that a true believer would not persevere in wilful sin. However, he did leave a bit more of a loophole than Catholics or Wesleyans did, inasmuch as he thought that David, for instance, continued to be a believer while committing adultery and murder (however, it was because David was a believer that he did repent when confronted by Nathan–had he hardened his heart and rejected Nathan’s admonition, he would have eventually lost faith and been damned).

Luther had to get rid of the fact of Mortal sin to make his own faith easier!

In the sense that Luther was plagued by scruples, was formed in a highly rigorous version of late medieval piety, was intellectually trained in a theology that did not do justice to essences and infused habits, and was steeped in a radical version of Augustine’s teaching on human depravity–yes, in the light of all those things he needed to find a way to stop worrying whether certain specific acts were mortal sins or not. However, Luther didn’t really get rid of mortal sin–he got rid of venial sin! If you mean that he didn’t think any individual act would damn someone who believed in Christ, then you are right, he did get rid of mortal sin.

No Protestant will admit that reality.

You clearly know nothing about the varieties of Protestantism. I was taught that certain acts would damn me if I deliberately committed them, I assure you. And since we took the Sermon on the Mount’s teaching about sins of thought very seriously, this caused me a great deal of terror as a teenage male, for reasons I probably don’t have to spell out!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

If the Elect is unknowable to men shouldn’t they Work out their salvation in fear and trembling"?

And if they must fear and if they must tremble isn’t that Proof positibve that “Faith alone” isn’t good enough.

If it really is what would be the purpose of fearing and trembling?

One fears and trembles, in many versions of Protestantism (particularly Calvinism), because one fears that one’s faith may be a false faith as evidenced by one’s actions. Calvinism is actually a more anxiety-inducing faith than the Catholicism, because your sins may be evidence of your reprobation rather than simply individual acts that need to be confessed and repented of.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Isn’t an intellectual faith dead without love? Surely a purely intellectual faith is not a saving faith?

A supernatural faith includes love otherwise it is only an intellectual faith.

As I read Aquinas, faith that is a gift of God does have a kind of love (which bridges the gap between opinion and certainty), but it does not in and of itself include the infused grace of charity which saves. That is an additional gift that “forms” faith.

This is my one real disagreement with Catholicism on the issue of justification. I think faith and love are one act; I believe that living faith and dead faith are two fundamentally different things; I believe that dead faith is identical to the faith of demons; and therefore I do not think that dead faith is a gift of God. It follows from these things that I believe that the faith that is a gift of God is lost whenever a person commits a mortal sin (though I think there are fewer mortal sins than traditional Catholicism holds, and it would have to be an extremely grave and extremely deliberate sin to break one’s relationship with God by a single act). This opinion (that faith is lost with every mortal sin) is explicitly condemned by the Council of Trent.

I should add that my position (particularly with regards to the faith of demons) is more compatible with the plain meaning of James than the traditional Catholic position (which distinguishes dead human faith sharply from the faith of demons, the latter not being a gift of God and not really faith at all).

Edwin

 

[Ani_Ibi]

If the Elect is unknowable to men shouldn’t they Work out their salvation in fear and trembling"?

Well… fear and trembling seem to be for ‘other people’. That’s what I have noticed. Mind you I have not conducted an exhaustive study. But by watching tele-evangelists and blog-evangelists, I reckon some folks think there are two kinds of people: those what know stuff; those what don’t.

And then I reckon that the folks what know stuff must think they are the elect and that the folks what don’t know stuff must be he reprobates. I always wondered what the point was in evangelizing reprobates. Except they might have money to contribute.

So I’ll just ask: what is the point of evangelizing reprobates?

Please don’t expect me to swallow that we can’t know who are reprobates. I already know that. And I agree with it. It’s just that a predestination world view could see poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, mental illness as being the fruit of the reprobate tree.

Don’t folks who buy into predestination believe themselves to be the elect? Just like folks who buy into reincarnation believe themselves to be former kings and heros?

 

[Contarini]

And then I reckon that the folks what know stuff must think they are the elect and that the folks what don’t know stuff must be he reprobates. I always wondered what the point was in evangelizing reprobates. Except they might have money to contribute.

So I’ll just ask: what is the point of evangelizing reprobates?

Please don’t expect me to swallow that we can’t know who are reprobates. I already know that. And I agree with it.

Then obviously you have already swallowed it, making your point rather unclear. Are you saying that you don’t believe that Calvinists think this? Well, they do. I once heard Calvin scholars arguing over whether Calvin thought that you could in some cases point out certain people as being reprobate (based on their actions–mainly opposition to Protestantism and persecution of Protestants!). But if Calvin did think this, these would be exceptional cases. By and large you don’t know, and it’s none of your business–that’s why you evangelize, and God moves people to repent and believe according to His good pleasure.

The plain fact is that Calvinists have historically engaged in vigorous evangelization, and claims to the contrary are largely Arminian propaganda (supposedly one Baptist elder criticized William Carey for his missionary zeal on the grounds of a belief in predestination–but Carey was a Calvinist himself).

It’s just that a predestination world view could see poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, mental illness as being the fruit of the reprobate tree.

It could, and some versions of Calvinism have, to some extent. But it can also be taken in exactly the opposite direction–because predestination is the sovereign act of God, those who are completely despised in the world’s eyes may be those whom God has chosen.

More to the point, this has nothing whatever to do with evangelization. Even if poverty is the result of the behavior of reprobates, you don’t know that specific poor people are reprobates.

Don’t folks who buy into predestination believe themselves to be the elect?

Calvinists do, by and large. Catholic Augustinians and Thomists do not (necessarily).

Edwin

 

[rr1213]

I always wondered what the point was in evangelizing reprobates. Except they might have money to contribute.

So I’ll just ask: what is the point of evangelizing reprobates?

The Great Commission.

 

[rr1213]

Don’t folks who buy into predestination believe themselves to be the elect? Just like folks who buy into reincarnation believe themselves to be former kings and heros?

Pretty much, at least when they aren’t worried as to whether they have deceived themselves.

 

[mgrfin]

No Protestant will admit that reality. And that is why Catholics should always strive to tell our Protestant brothers and sisters the truth because we love them and don’t want them to fall into just one mortal sin where “Faith Alone” won’t be good enough and will damn them to Hell!

I don’t think that non-Catholics don’t believe that serious sin exists. They even believe that what we call ‘venial’ is serious sin.
They can say that, of course, because forgiveness is nearly automatic, that is, faith in Jesus covers over our sins, regardless of severity, except sins of disbelief.

We tend to forget that most ‘Christians’ don’t have a sophicated theology to sort these things out.

They accuse us of not accepting the Scriptures, and that we just rely on the Pope to tell us what to do. The real truth, is that we accept Scripture more than they, cause they overlook those scriptures which point to the Truth of Catholicism.

Definitions are not even exact enough when it comes to defining ‘Catholicism’, since a lot of non Roman Catholics don’t like the term Protestant, but they are ‘part’ of this Church, which they are not.

So Anglicans, Episcopalians, of different stripes might call themselves “Catholic”. We have to keep reminding them that they were part of that split that came in the "Reformation’ in the 16th Century, and that they are all Protestants to us.

Maybe that statement is ‘hard’, rigid’, narrowminded to them. Truth, in order for them to focus on the truth that they are ‘outsiders looking in’, we may have them come to grips with their problem rather than saying ‘we are all the same’. We are not all the same.

mgrfin

Feast of Assumption
Ant ad Offertorium
“I will put enmity between you and
the woman, between your seed and
her seed”. Gen 3, 15

 

[Pax]

In the Calvinist understanding it is.

Edwin

Agreed.

 

[mikeledes]

If he believed in predesitination, he believed in once saved always saved. The elect are infallibly saved…once justified by faith, the work of God will continue through to final glorification!

Ro 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Php 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

Romans 14:15, 20

15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died.
20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense.

Compare that with 1 Corinthians 8:9-10

9 But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11 And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

The work of God destroyed? A brother for whom Christ dies perishing? That certainly coontradicts Calvinist theology.

God Bless,
Michael