Continuation with Jeremiah - Discussion not Book

[Thinkingstuff]

Hello again! I wrote a very long post just to kind of tell you where I am and have been and I appreciate your testimony and I have learned by reading your posts. First question is, where did you hear the Gospel of Salvation by faith through grace? Where were you preached to? Later on you mention my statement of "salvation by grace through faith"--yes I didn't say alone, but I didn't add anything to it either.....My premise is that salvific faith itself is by the grace of God [if you have read RC Sproul you should understand that]--yes man can fabricate and "work at" faith; however, if it doesn't come from God he will find himself somewhere in the parable of the sower [not the good soil either ]

It is always good to know where people stand. As far as the bolded part I agree entirely. The opposite of James logic also holds true. James said Faith without works are dead. Likewise works conducted without faith are equally dead. Works should be a demonstration of the faith already obtained. Or better yet an out pouring of that faith. But I don't look at them as independent of each other.

First, sounds like we are about the same age as those are the same people I used to listen to! Secondly, any serious student of the Bible will lean towards TULIP whether they accept all the points of the Doctrines of Grace [Calvinism] or Not

I'm no certain this is correct because in University I came across many serious students of the bible that didn't hold to TULIP. However, there are certain aspects of Tulip that seem appropriate and others that do not. For instance I don't hold to Total Depravity as hyper Calvinist Portrays it. I don't think Calvin actually went as far as some. The Hyper view ignores that we are still made in God's image and by that fact alone there are "carryovers into our nature though corrupted by sin" So, sinful degenerate people can occasionally do things for others and not be self oriented always. This doesn't mean they will be saved but God's image in use still has its effects. Plus this is seen in actuality in real life as you observe people. Some other carryover effects of our creation in God's image: "God size hole" in our hearts, the universal consept of fairness (whether its applied or not), the fact we can love others, etc... Of course each of these aspects suffers a bit of corruption depending on the person but every now and again people do the noble thing rather than always give in to their baser nature.

Ok I won't go into the catechism points --my question to you is: if you were to explain to me how someone will go to heaven, you will answer what? The Catholic Church will answer what?

The typical Catholic Answer to that is simple if you're Catholic and understand Catholic lingo. Kind of like Born Again Christians have their own lingo that must be defined to the non iniciated. So I'll give the Catholic Answer and explain what it means. The answer is you must be in a state of Sanctifying Grace when all is said and done. Ok what does that mean?
To explain it I must express the protestant view of Salvation or at least a part of it. Salvation from a protestant perspective is one thing at one point in time. In otherwords a singularity. For the Catholic perspective I will reference John Bunyan's Pilgrims progress.

At last there came a grave person to the gate, named Goodwill, who asked who was there, and whence he came, and what he would have.

Christian: Here is a poor burdened sinner. I come from the city of Destruction, but am going to Mount Zion, that I may be delivered from the wrath to come; I would therefore, sir, since I am informed that by this gate is the way thither, know if you are willing to let me in.

Goodwill: I am willing with all my heart, said he; and with that he opened the gate.

So when Christian was stepping in, the other gave him a pull. Then said Christian, What means that? The other told him, A little distance from this gate there is erected a strong castle, of which Beelzebub is the captain: from thence both he and they that are with him, shoot arrows at those that come up to this gate, if haply they may die before they can enter in. Then said Christian, I rejoice and tremble. So when he was got in, the man of the Gate asked him who directed him thither.

Salvation is very much a gate which you enter in and everything after it that journeys towards heaven is a part of that salvation. You enter in at receipt of faith and washed of your sins and you continue in it until the end of your days. So how do you enter into Salvation? What Peter says in Acts 2

36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”

37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”

38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

And when all is said in done in your life as you continue in the sanctifying grace given you are assured of the hope and promises of heaven Jesus gave. Thus Sanctifying Grace is

Grace (gratia, Charis), in general, is a supernatural gift of God to intellectual creatures for their eternal salvation,...Among the three fundamental ideas — sin, redemption, and grace — grace plays the part of the means, indispensable and Divinely ordained, to effect the redemption from sin through Christ and to lead men to their eternal destiny in heaven.

If however at the end of your life you find yourself in a state which is in rebellion towards God rather than in Sanctifying Grace Then there is only one outcome. And it isn't good.

If salvation comes from grace through faith, what is the purpose of the mass? What is the doctrine of transubstantiation? Do I have to have faith in those things to go to heaven? Would you turn someone who is truly seeking to be saved to the Catholic church?

Many Questions. The purpose of Mass is to worship God, participate in the divine life, hear the scriptures expounded on and to commune with God and community. The Docrtine of Transubstation can take a long time but I will break it down. First of all in the ancient world the term "Symbol" meant a royal seal that was broken in half would be the symbol of the whole seal. In fact it was a part of that seal. In the modern context it means just a representation but in the ancient world that is not how it was viewed. It represented the whole and was indeed part of it. Next the communion which we take that Jesus established before his death is connected to the Passover meal. Both the Passover meal and the Communion Meal (which Catholics call Eucharist because it also has a connection to the Levitical thanksgiving offering) are covenant meals. Passover renewed the Jew's Covenant with God and our Communion Celebration renews our Covenant with God. Note in the Passover meal the sacrifical lamb was consumed this is a foreshadowing of Jesus Christ who is called the Lamb of God by John the baptist and is referred to in Revelation. Now the bread and the wine are the key elements of this meal as much as the bitter herbs, wine, Matzah, and lamb are the key elements of the Passover meal. These elements when prayed over are no longer considered regular bread and wine but contain the real presence of Jesus christ. However the elements don't loose their physical nature. Ie... a chemical make up of bread and wine stay the same. However, in the ancient Greek term from where we get substantial on a deeper level the substance has changed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This does not make a new sacrifice. But like the Passover meal the Jews Celebrate it brings the believers "back in time" so to speak to the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That is the short of it. I can explain longer but it is already a long post. However, we can discuss more of it later on.

Is that how you found salvation? Your testimony seems to say otherwise......

I'm not sure what you are asking. I was converted from my sins when I was 15 and came to an understanding of Jesus Christ. previous to this I had no faith of my own. And noteably my family didn't either. Superstition is not the same as faith.

A different question: if a child is born into a RC family and goes through all the requirements the Church has, will they go to Heaven?

Not if they don't have faith.

Does the RC Church tell them they are saved [going to Heaven]?

As long as they find themselves in sanctifying grace. More often they tell them that if they are in Mortal sin (volunatry rebellion against God) they are going to hell.

I have no doubt there are saved people in the RCC as there are many unsaved people in Protestant Churches, my question is, why would a truly born again believer want to be a part of a system which doesn't teach salvation by faith IN CHRIST ALONE [there I said it for you]

Thank you for not failing my expectation.

If when you say Faith alone you include that works are the natural and necissary result of Faith I think we can be cool with that Though I would say faith doesn't exist in a vacuum. YOu don't attain it it is by grace and it doesn't end with a heartfelt feeling but with fruit so Faith really is never alone. If however you mean some heart felt belief that doesn't change your life and there is no repentance I cannot agree with you that you don't find yourself in sanctifying grace becoming more Christlike each day I couldnt agree with that. ref. Matthew 24: 36-51 Matthew 25:1-13

 

[The Biblicist]

In the modern context it means just a representation but in the ancient world that is not how it was viewed. It represented the whole and was indeed part of it.

Thinkingstuff your explanations are consistent with what I have gleaned from conversing with other Catholics and from reading the Catholic Catechism.

That being said, I have problems with harmonizing the Catholic view with the Bible. I especially have a problem with your definition of a "sign" or "seal" above. For example Paul said that circumcision was such a "sign" or "seal" of justification by faith in Romans 4:11

11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

However, Paul seems to be arguing the very reverse of your conclusion as to the ancient meaning of a "sign" and "seal." You argue that the "sign" or "seal" is INCLUSIVE but Paul is arguing that it is EXCLUSIVE of Justification by faith.

For example, he says that a person is justified by faith regardless if they have received circumcision or have not received circumcision - "the father of all them that beleive, though they be NOT CIRCUMCISED" thus excluding circumcision as part of justification by faith.

Moreover, his argument concerning one who had been circumcised, indeed the very one with which circumcision originated (Abraham) is that he had already been justified by faith BEFORE he was circumcised not that circumcision was inclusive in being justified - "the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised:"

Paul is not merely saying the very opposite of what you are saying but is condemning what you are saying as false. You are saying that things which are a "sign" or "seal" are inclusive of the very thing they signify but Paul is explicitly and clearly denying that very idea by insisting that Abraham already "had" justification without the sign or seal in the case of Abraham and in the case of all gentile believers.

Romans 4:9-11 is the only place where the time of justification is specifically addressed in Romans 4:1-22 ("when" - v.10). In Romans 5:1-2 Paul uses Aorist tense and Perfect tense verbs to demonstrate it is not a continuing action but rather a completed action in the past just as he argues in verse 11 that Abraham already "had" been justified before being circumcision.

If you are wrong on this point then the whole soteriological foundation of Rome is wrong.

 

[lakeside]

Biblicist, you wrote : "Romans 4:9-11 is the only place where the time of justification is specifically addressed in Romans 4:1-22 ("when" - v.10). In Romans 5:1-2 Paul uses Aorist tense and Perfect tense verbs to demonstrate it is not a continuing action but rather a completed action in the past just as he argues in verse 11 that Abraham already "had" been justified before being circumcision."

"The New American Bible " says this - Since this liberation will first find completion in the believer's resurrection, salvation is described as "future ' in Rom. 5:10.

Rom 4:3-4 here Paul is referring to "works" apart from God's grace. We can't expect God to give us 'grace' like someone who asks their boss for pay .wages '. Faith in Jesus must be necessary for our "good works '' in order for it to be considered a " work of grace '' , otherwise , it is a work of obligation.
Rom.4:3- it was "credited'' to him as righteousness. God records what the person actually accomplished.

Paul uses the word "alone '' 3 times in Rom.4:12,16,23 but never uses it with the word "faith ' . If Paul wanted to teach "Faith Alone " , seems as he would have said so, don't you think so ?

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist, you wrote : "Romans 4:9-11 is the only place where the time of justification is specifically addressed in Romans 4:1-22 ("when" - v.10). In Romans 5:1-2 Paul uses Aorist tense and Perfect tense verbs to demonstrate it is not a continuing action but rather a completed action in the past just as he argues in verse 11 that Abraham already "had" been justified before being circumcision."

"The New American Bible " says this - Since this liberation will first find completion in the believer's resurrection, salvation is described as "future ' in Rom. 5:10.

Will you agree with me that whenever one must respond to scripture by pitting other scripture against scripture that their understanding of both scriptures are flawed or else God is the author of confusion? If you undertand the scripture you can explain it within its own context. Try to overthrow my contextual exposition if you can. You obviously ignored it, so I guess you had to restort to plan "B" - pit scripture against scripture!

The term "salvation" involves a great variety of different aspects that are not synonymous with each other in nature or time of occurrence. For example, the salvation of our bodies is yet future when they are glorified. However, gospel conversion is also an aspect of salvation which occurs before glorificaton of the body and thus is distinct from it in the sense they deal with two completely different aspects of our salvation without excluding either from the great unbrella term of "salvaiton."

Paul is dealing with individual apsects of salvation in a logical order in the book of Romans. First he deals with the problem that demands the need of salvation (Rom. 1:18-3:23) or the sinfulness of man. Then he proceeds to deal with solution or salvation of man from sin beginning with justification by grace through faith in Christ (Rom. 3:24-5:2). Later he deals with the relationship of regeneration with justification by faith (Rom. 6) and the relationship of justification and sanctification with the law of God (Rom. 7) and the relationship of sanctification to the work of the Spirit of God (Rom. 8:1-27) and then with the overall purpose of God (Rom. 8:28-36). All of these things equally fit under the umbrella term of "salvation" but not all are equal with each other in nature or in logical sequence or in time of application.

Romans 3:24-5:2 deals explicitly with justification by faith in Christ as a distinct aspect of salvation in general. It is a completed aspect at the point of faith in Christ and continues as a completed aspect throughout the Christian life. That is the argument presented by Paul and confirmed by the serious logical arguments he presents in Romans 3:24-5:2 as well as to the choice of tenses He uses versus the tenses he does not employ.

Now, that does not mean justification by faith occurs in a vacuum or in complete separation from other aspects of salvation in general. No, it has its place and logical relationship and time of application in relationship to Salvation as a whole.

It is the failure of Rome and Roman soteriology to distinguish between things that differ in nature, logical sequence and time of application in their overall view of salvation that I am challenging. However, even Rome distinguishes between regeneration and glorification in regard to the time of application to the person and to its nature and logical relationship does it not?

Rom 4:3-4 here Paul is referring to "works" apart from God's grace.

That is not true! He is in fact denying works as inclusive of grace and pitting them one against the other in regard to justification before God. In Romans 11:6 he clearly states they are antithetic to each other and cannot include one another.

We can't expect God to give us 'grace' like someone who asks their boss for pay .wages '.

Paul's response to the very analogy you use above is found in Romans 4:4. Works are like wages but grace is a gift and we are justified "without works" but not without grace (Rom. 3:24; 4:4-6).

Faith in Jesus must be necessary for our "good works '' in order for it to be considered a " work of grace '' , otherwise , it is a work of obligation.

This is nothing but human rationalization that attempts to repudiate the Word of God on this matter. I gave an exposition of Romans 4:11 in regard to what God's Word understands the relationship of a divine "sign" or "seal" with justification by faith and you don't even attempt to deal with it. Why? If you could you would! Hence, since you cannot your only resort is to human rationalization pitted against God's Word. If that is not so, then deal with the exposition and show by the immediate context why I am wrong instead of jumping out of that context and pitting scripture against scripture.
Rom.4:3- it was "credited'' to him as righteousness. God records what the person actually accomplished.

Paul uses the word "alone '' 3 times in Rom.4:12,16,23 but never uses it with the word "faith ' . If Paul wanted to teach "Faith Alone " , seems as he would have said so, don't you think so ?

Have you ever heard of the expression "can't see the forrest for the tree in your face"? (no personal offence intended). Paul is explicitly repeating that justification before God is by faith "without works" over and over again. Justification before God is not without grace, without Christ or without Christ's personal works, or without the Holy Spirit or without regeneration but it is "without works" - YOUR works, - it is without your law keeping (Rom. 4:13-15) and it is without your personal input (Rom. 4:16-22).

Paul's argument is exclusive in Romans 4. Abraham lived before the Mosaic law and therefore his "works" cannot be defined as the works of the Mosaic law (Rom. 4:13-15) so "works" in Romans 4:11 must refer to his own personal efforts to be justified before God rather than some kind of Jewishness under law.

 

[Jeremiah2911]

Hello ThinkingStuff! I noticed you continued our conversation here and I will do so when I'm able [Church tnite etc....] God bless and look forward to reading your post [and Biblicist too]

 

[lakeside]

Biblicist, You misunderstand what the Catholic Church teaches, and i am not the best student that can explain it. All I know is that which the Bible tells me and that is "salvation',
is a gift of God and it depends on how we accept and use that free gift. In no way can i accept your Protestant way of acceptance of salvation ,as a " just accept Jesus in your heart' as a one-time cure all for eternal bliss , or "i'm born again ' or" have you accepted Jesus yet" kinda formular. No way is that the way the Bible explains it. Because in this verse of Phil. 2: 12-13 I read where "good works " done in grace , by the gift of God, whose grace works in us.

Eph. 2;8-9 ' For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing , it is the gift of God... not because of works , lest any man should boast ."

1st Cor.9 v 27, No, I drive my body and train it, for fear that , after having preached to others , I myself should be disqualified.

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist, You misunderstand what the Catholic Church teaches, and i am not the best student that can explain it. All I know is that which the Bible tells me and that is "salvation',
is a gift of God and it depends on how we accept and use that free gift. In no way can i accept your Protestant way of acceptance of salvation ,as a " just accept Jesus in your heart' as a one-time cure all for eternal bliss , or "i'm born again ' or" have you accepted Jesus yet" kinda formular. No way is that the way the Bible explains it. Because in this verse of Phil. 2: 12-13 I read where "good works " done in grace , by the gift of God, whose grace works in us.

Eph. 2;8-9 ' For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing , it is the gift of God... not because of works , lest any man should boast ."

1st Cor.9 v 27, No, I drive my body and train it, for fear that , after having preached to others , I myself should be disqualified.

Look at my response to TS concerning the Catholic interpretation of the relationship of a "sign" and "seal" with justification. TS properly presented the Catholic view and the whole soteriology of Roman Catholicism will stand or fall on that very interpretation.

If a "sign" and "seal" of justification is also inclusive of justification then Rome's soteriology stands. However, if a "sign" and "seal" of justification is not inclusive of Justification then the whole soteriological framework of Rome comes crashing down.

As I demonstrated the Roman Catholic explanation is completely repudiated by Paul in Romans 4:11.

Second, you do not understand my view of salvation at all or you would not explain it the way you have. However, I can understand why you explain it that way because there are many who present it just in that manner, so I don't blame you.

For starters, I do not believe there is such a thing as a man who is justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works who is not also regenerated and producing the manifest fruits of regeneration which are "good works." Although, I don't confuse these two different aspects of salvation, I don't deny one exists without the other. That means I do not accept the profession of faith as genuine where there are no "good works" being manifested in that life.

However, those works are "fruits" or manifest evidence of regeneration making regeneration the cause not the effect of good works (Eph. 2:10 "created....UNTO good works").

Bottom line, those truly justified by faith are regenerated people who manifest "good works" or else there is no basis to recognize them as either justified or regenerated.

 

[billwald]

>"salvation', is a gift of God and it depends on how we accept and use that free gift.

Humans seem to have a problem handling gifts. When a gift is given, title passes and the giver has no legal or financial interest in the property. A parent gives a toy to a child and becomes angry when the child trashes it. It is not the parent's business to become angry. If the parent doesn't trust the child then maybe the toy should be loaned. Try it this Christmas and report your results.

A person I knew was 2 months behind in his electric bill went to the utility office to beg for mercy - new baby and winter weather. He was told his bill was paid up. The company could not tell him how or why. He suspected it was a typo and someone got cheated. Of someone he knew could have paid his bill. My point - if so, it was a done deal. The title to the money had transferred to my friend's account. He could not give it back if we wanted to.

So if God "Gives" us a "Gift" of eternal life it is a done deal. We can ignore it but there is no mechanism in place for returning it.

 

[lakeside]

Biblicist, i am doing more harm in trying to defend the Catholic Church, i am just a neophyte and will let other more Biblical educated Catholics set you straight on this and other critical issues on salvation, etc. . I am not qualified to repeat any teaching, as i was taught by more qualified Catholics , believe me i would still be a Baptist Fundamantalists if it wasn't for the vast knowledge of the Catholic theologians and Catholic apologists, many who came from Protestant clergy/ theologians. It is very obvious that all teaching knowledge and authority was given only to the Catholic/Apostolic Church. It alone contains the "fullness of the Christian faith". Luke 10: 16. Not "one" verse can you find that supports any Protestant church ,while on the other hand i can point out many verses that support a "one" apostolic teaching universal Church. Many, many passages support the Apostolic Teaching Church that Jesus founded with the intention of that Church being One and Universal/ Catholic . I hope that one of the more qualified [ albeit greatly outnumbered by you Protestants ] Catholics on this forum come back and explain your misunderstanding of not only the Catholic Church but your dependence on a man-made concept called 'sola Scriptura'.

 

[Jeremiah2911]

It is always good to know where people stand. As far as the bolded part I agree entirely. The opposite of James logic also holds true. James said Faith without works are dead. Likewise works conducted without faith are equally dead. Works should be a demonstration of the faith already obtained. Or better yet an out pouring of that faith. But I don't look at them as independent of each other.

I must say from the outset that I appreciate getting to read your posts. As I stated in an earlier post, I have 9 families in my Church that came out of the Catholic Church [no recruiting either] and I have family that are in the Catholic Church and I always like to learn the hows and whys of people's theology--I can tell you that 100% of the people in my Church were in the RCC all their lives and they have, at best, very minimal knowledge of the Bible or any Bible doctrine--they will tell you that Bible study is not encouraged, and history would bear this out--not to get into a different discussion, but don't you think it seems odd the RCC Church persecuted Bible translators?

What you said here would be basic Arminian theory--I will say that works would constitute an evidence of faith, not a requirement--when you add any act of man as a requirement of salvation, it is tainted. This is certainly a point of contention even within Baptist ranks but it is Biblical:

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

I was raised in a Church that doesn't believe in eternal security, and if you believe man has anything to do with his/her salvation, then that would be the logical conclusion. However, Scripture teaches salvation by grace through faith--a gift from God--no works involved.

I'm going to have to stop here for the evening.....will get back to the rest! God bless

 

[Jeremiah2911]

I'm no certain this is correct because in University I came across many serious students of the bible that didn't hold to TULIP. However, there are certain aspects of Tulip that seem appropriate and others that do not. For instance I don't hold to Total Depravity as hyper Calvinist Portrays it. I don't think Calvin actually went as far as some. The Hyper view ignores that we are still made in God's image and by that fact alone there are "carryovers into our nature though corrupted by sin" So, sinful degenerate people can occasionally do things for others and not be self oriented always. This doesn't mean they will be saved but God's image in use still has its effects. Plus this is seen in actuality in real life as you observe people. Some other carryover effects of our creation in God's image: "God size hole" in our hearts, the universal consept of fairness (whether its applied or not), the fact we can love others, etc... Of course each of these aspects suffers a bit of corruption depending on the person but every now and again people do the noble thing rather than always give in to their baser nature.

This is certainly my own personal experience--the more I study Scripture/history, the more Calvinistic I have become....
Not sure we have the same understanding of Total Depravity--I copied and pasted this from a reformed website:

Sin has affected all parts of man. The heart, emotions, will, mind, and body are all affected by sin. We are completely sinful. We are not as sinful as we could be, but we are completely affected by sin.

The doctrine of Total Depravity is derived from scriptures that reveal human character: Man’s heart is evil (Mark 7:21-23) and sick Jer. 17:9). Man is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:20). He does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12). He cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). He is at enmity with God (Eph. 2:15). And, is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3). The Calvinist asks the question, "In light of the scriptures that declare man’s true nature as being utterly lost and incapable, how is it possible for anyone to choose or desire God?" The answer is, "He cannot. Therefore God must predestine."

Calvinism also maintains that because of our fallen nature we are born again not by our own will but God’s will (John 1:12-13); God grants that we believe (Phil. 1:29); faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29); God appoints people to believe (Acts 13:48); and God predestines (Eph. 1:1-11; Rom. 8:29; 9:9-23).

Now whether we want to believe all that are not, the Scriptures are certainly clear--the definition of mans Total depravity is to teach us we can't save ourselves

The typical Catholic Answer to that is simple if you're Catholic and understand Catholic lingo. Kind of like Born Again Christians have their own lingo that must be defined to the non iniciated. So I'll give the Catholic Answer and explain what it means. The answer is you must be in a state of Sanctifying Grace when all is said and done. Ok what does that mean?
To explain it I must express the protestant view of Salvation or at least a part of it. Salvation from a protestant perspective is one thing at one point in time. In otherwords a singularity. For the Catholic perspective I will reference John Bunyan's Pilgrims progress. Salvation is very much a gate which you enter in and everything after it that journeys towards heaven is a part of that salvation. You enter in at receipt of faith and washed of your sins and you continue in it until the end of your days. So how do you enter into Salvation? What Peter says in Acts 2 And when all is said in done in your life as you continue in the sanctifying grace given you are assured of the hope and promises of heaven Jesus gave. Thus Sanctifying Grace is If however at the end of your life you find yourself in a state which is in rebellion towards God rather than in Sanctifying Grace Then there is only one outcome. And it isn't good.

Again this teaching [sanctifying grace as you call it] would be considered works salvation--TS you are either saved or you aren't--yes Scripture teaches he that endures to the end will be saved--all this means is there are no such things as "apostates" --someone who was TRULY born again and then forever turn away from the faith--I put people like that into the parable of the sower--weren't really saved and when the newness wore off, they were gone.

Many Questions. The purpose of Mass is to worship God, participate in the divine life, hear the scriptures expounded on and to commune with God and community. The Docrtine of Transubstation can take a long time but I will break it down. First of all in the ancient world the term "Symbol" meant a royal seal that was broken in half would be the symbol of the whole seal. In fact it was a part of that seal. In the modern context it means just a representation but in the ancient world that is not how it was viewed. It represented the whole and was indeed part of it. Next the communion which we take that Jesus established before his death is connected to the Passover meal. Both the Passover meal and the Communion Meal (which Catholics call Eucharist because it also has a connection to the Levitical thanksgiving offering) are covenant meals. Passover renewed the Jew's Covenant with God and our Communion Celebration renews our Covenant with God. Note in the Passover meal the sacrifical lamb was consumed this is a foreshadowing of Jesus Christ who is called the Lamb of God by John the baptist and is referred to in Revelation. Now the bread and the wine are the key elements of this meal as much as the bitter herbs, wine, Matzah, and lamb are the key elements of the Passover meal. These elements when prayed over are no longer considered regular bread and wine but contain the real presence of Jesus christ. However the elements don't loose their physical nature. Ie... a chemical make up of bread and wine stay the same. However, in the ancient Greek term from where we get substantial on a deeper level the substance has changed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This does not make a new sacrifice. But like the Passover meal the Jews Celebrate it brings the believers "back in time" so to speak to the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That is the short of it. I can explain longer but it is already a long post. However, we can discuss more of it later on.

I asked the question because I was told the RCC's position is that ones' salvation depends upon partaking of the mass--which is how you are in "sanctifying grace" as you told me its called--again, this is a definition of works salvation which is not Biblical [Ephesians 2:8-9] --I read HA Ironsides Book on Revelation and he mentions the Catholic Service as being a mixture of Judaism, Heathenism and Christianity and your explanation seems to agree....the most important part of the OT Passover was the sign of salvation to come--the elements involved were just connected with obedience.....In the NT the key element is obedience period--we do this, as oft as we would, in remembrance of what Christ did for us at Calvary.

I'm not sure what you are asking. I was converted from my sins when I was 15 and came to an understanding of Jesus Christ. previous to this I had no faith of my own. And noteably my family didn't either. Superstition is not the same as faith.

Well I asked this question and I'll ask it a different way--where were you converted and how? Maybe this will shed a little light for me to understand where you are today...

Not if they don't have faith.
As long as they find themselves in sanctifying grace. More often they tell them that if they are in Mortal sin (volunatry rebellion against God) they are going to hell.

Ok I'll agree with you here except I'll say, they won't go to Heaven if they don't have Christ.....Now my question--you said "more often they tell them...." Who does that? I knew a young man who went to Catholic School for 13 yrs, went to mass every Sat night [so he could party and sleep in Sunday btw ] and I asked him a simple question, cause with his education he should know--I asked, if you died tonight, would you go to Heaven?--His first response was--well, which level? :smilewinkgrin: I told him I was kind of new at this so start me off at level 1.....well he hem hawed around about 10 seconds and then said, well if I live a good life, when I die everything will be ok.......Now I thought to myself, if he REALLY believed that, he should be scared to death! He was living like a HEATHEN!! But the lack of any ability to explain his spiritual condition was amazing considering his "education".....this is why I would find it hard to believe the RCC would tell anyone of their members they were going to hell as long as they were taking mass and giving, etc.....

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I must say from the outset that I appreciate getting to read your posts. As I stated in an earlier post, I have 9 families in my Church that came out of the Catholic Church [no recruiting either] and I have family that are in the Catholic Church and I always like to learn the hows and whys of people's theology--I can tell you that 100% of the people in my Church were in the RCC all their lives and they have, at best, very minimal knowledge of the Bible or any Bible doctrine--they will tell you that Bible study is not encouraged, and history would bear this out--not to get into a different discussion, but don't you think it seems odd the RCC Church persecuted Bible translators?

Oh I'm glad to hear it. Hopefully, I can clear up some things others I'm content to agree to disagree on but at least you'll know where the Catholic Church actually stands on certain topics.

As for the ex-catholic family members in your church I must say that is a common problem. It was for me and so it is for very many. Many blame Vatican II for this issue because it allowed for many modernist views to enter. Though personally I think Vatican II may have had something to do with it but I put the blame on a culture that was tollerated but not very Catholic acting. As far as bible study being discouraged, this isn't really true. The actuall answer was that it wasn't being encouraged. As you may or may not know the entire text (for the most part) of the entire bible is read at mass over a 3 year cycle with the Gospels given priority. However, there was a culture that separated the religious and the majority of the Laity. The Catholic clergy did their thing and the layity did their thing and the two don't really mix and there wasn't a lot of proper Catachesis going on. But neither were people told not to study scripture just with a warning that often a misunderstanding of scripture leads to heresy and its important to understand it from how scriptures have been traditionally understood. So when I was young. I went to mass with my family heard the same responses but allowed my mind to wander and I could opperate on remote control until communion because it was near the end of service. Then I woke up to enjoy the rest of my Sunday. I'm not the only Catholic to experience that or protestant either. However, its not useful for communicating the faith. Your observation about your church families not knowing scriptures reminds me of an event just before I converted. My father was an diplomat serving in Africa. The only christian american school that he could get me into not to far away from his assignment was a large Christian Missionary School in Kenya called Rift Valley Academy. It is run by the African Inland Mission non denominational group. They provide primarily for missionary kids. However, by the grace of God I was fortunate to have one of the kids not come and a slot was open for us. It didn't hurt that we paid more either but its understandable. Well my first day there I was unpacking in my dorm room with three other kids. One of them named Kevin asked me if I were a christian. I said yes. He asked me what denomination as RVA represents a lot of denominations. I said Catholic. And changed a lot of things. He immediately said that I was not a Christian, that the Pope was the anti-Christ, and further more I didn't know the bible. Well, in my mind I heard the bible every mass so yeah I know about the bible...well that it existed and even knew some of the words in there. So I said so. And he said well quote for me John 3:16. I couldn't. I realized then that there was some deficit to my christian education. Unfortunately, it affirmed to him all of his beliefs about the Catholic Church but more so I knew I needed to get a handle on scriptures. I spent the rest of my life from that point studying scriptures. Now as I've returned to the Catholic faith. I have been encouraged to teach the bible to other parishoners and there are many Catholic Bible resources out there right now and Catholics are encouraged to read the bible. In the Catachism it says

132 "Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture."111 133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.112

Pretty strong language for not studying scriptures don't you think? So your families and my family and myself at that age were wrong that the Catholic Discouraged reading scripture. That wasn't the case. Your families, my family and myself never felt the need to study scripture and liberal clergy members didn't disuade us from this practice of ignoring scripture. Even historically you are mistaken. William Tyndale is often purported to be the first to translate the bible into english and supposedly he was killed for it. Actually in History long before William Tyndale set pen to paper; St. Bede began the first translation of scripture into early english text. However, this is often ignored by Protestants. Tyndale was actually perscuted not for translating the scriptures into english but that he didn't get it approved and mass distributed anyway. As far as Bede history says

Even on the day of his death (the vigil of the Ascension, 735) the saint was still busy dictating a translation of the Gospel of St. John.

He never finished his work but he certainly was attempting to make it understandable to the populace of the English Isle. So the actual reason for Tyndale's demise is

So what was the real reason William Tyndale was condemned? Was translating the Bible into English actually illegal? The answer is no. The law that was passed in 1408 was in reaction to another infamous translator, John Wycliff. Wycliff had produced a translation of the Bible that was corrupt and full of heresy. It was not an accurate rendering of sacred Scripture.

Both the Church and the secular authorities condemned it and did their best to prevent it from being used to teach false doctrine and morals. Because of the scandal it caused, the Synod of Oxford passed a law in 1408 that prevented any unauthorized translation of the Bible into English and also forbade the reading of such unauthorized translations...All this law did was to prevent any private individual from publishing his own translation of Scripture without the approval of the Church.

Which, as it turns out, is just what William Tyndale did. Tyndale was an English priest of no great fame who desperately desired to make his own English translation of the Bible. The Church denied him for several reasons.

What you said here would be basic Arminian theory--I will say that works would constitute an evidence of faith, not a requirement--

Catholics have their own theologians as well and I would say its closer to a Molinist theory rather than Aquinas. But I get your drift. You are both a little right and wrong. Faith is always expressed in one form or another. If Faith is not expressing itself then you must question that faith. For instance the theif on the cross. Now he did no works however faith was expressed by his words and life is assured to him. However, Had the theif not died that day we would assume the natural outpouring of his faith would have revealed itself in his sanctification of his life. Which is really what catholics are speaking about when it comes to works.

when you add any act of man as a requirement of salvation, it is tainted.

Any act that man does to merit salvation apart from acting in faith I would agree. However, sanctification is an important part of our faith.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Salvation is a gift of God bestowed on us by faith. You can't earn it. There is no contention here with the Catholic faith about this. However, does this mean we live in continual rebelion? No. Our faith affects our sanctification and our lives are submitted in obedience.

 

[The Biblicist]

Any act that man does to merit salvation apart from acting in faith I would agree. However, sanctification is an important part of our faith.

So you make no distinction between "faith" that may be placed in someone or something and "faithfulness" which is descriptive of your own person?

Salvation is a gift of God bestowed on us by faith.

Does Ephesians 2:8 say "by grace are ye saved BY FAITHFULNESS that bestows salvation upon us as a gift"? Or does it say "by grace are ye saved THROUGH FAITH and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God"????

Faith that justifies is faith "in" the faithfulness of Christ rather than "by" your own faithfulness "to" Christ.

The often but inaccurate accusation that this teaches a person can live in sin and yet be saved is a failure to distinguish between things that differ and things that "accompany salvation." There is no such thing as a justified man who is not also a regenerated man and our "good works" stem from regeneration in us on earth not justification before God by Christ's works in heaven.

 

[lakeside]

Full Question
Why does the Roman Catholic Church teach the doctrine of "works righteousness," that through good works one can earn salvation?
Answer
The Catholic Church has never taught such a doctrine and, in fact, has constantly condemned the notion that men can earn or merit salvation. Catholic soteriology (salvation theology) is rooted in apostolic Tradition and Scripture and says that it is only by God's grace--completely unmerited by works--that one is saved.

The Church teaches that it's God's grace from beginning to end which justifies, sanctifies, and saves us. As Paul explains in Philippians 2:13, "God is the one, who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work."

Notice that Paul's words presuppose that the faithful Christian is not just desiring to be righteous, but is actively working toward it. This is the second half of the justification equation, and Protestants either miss or ignore it.

James 2:17 reminds us that "faith of itself, if it does not have work, is dead." In verse 24 James says, "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." And later: "For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead" (2:26).

The Council of Trent harmonizes the necessity of grace and works: "If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or by the teaching of the Law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema" (Session 6; can. 1).

The Council fathers continued by saying, "If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema" (Session 6: can. 9).

By the way, "let him be anathema" means "let him be excommunicated," not "let him be cursed to hell." The phrase was used in conciliar documents in a technical, theological sense, not in the same sense as the word "anathema" is found in Scripture. Don't let "Bible Christians" throw you for a loop on this one.

So, far from teaching a doctrine of "works righteousness" (that would be Pelagianism, which was condemned at the Council of Carthage in A.D. 418), the Catholic Church teaches the true, biblical doctrine of justification.

answered by Staff of Catholic Answers

 

[The Biblicist]

Notice that Paul's words presuppose that the faithful Christian is not just desiring to be righteous, but is actively working toward it. This is the second half of the justification equation, and Protestants either miss or ignore it.

In the above paragraph Rome makes the transition from grace to works by merging regenerative works into the doctrine of justification by faith "without works." As a result they merely perform mental gynastics and in fact are teaching salvation by works not by the Biblical meaning of grace but have made works inclusive of grace.

In particular, they have taken the work of the indwelling Holy Spriit IN and THROUGH us (Philip. 2:13) and made "faithfulness" equal to "faith" making OUR regenerative works (Eph. 2:10) inclusive with Christ's own works in the doctrine of Justification by faith.

Thus, they confuse what Christ did in His own body with what Christ does through our own body. They confuse "faith in" what Christ did for us in His own body with "faithfulness" or what we do in our own body for Christ.

They confuse regeneration and its fruits in OUR OWN PERSON and ON EARTH with justification and its fruits in CHRIST'S OWN PERSON and IN HEAVEN in our POSITION before God.

James 2:17 reminds us that "faith of itself, if it does not have work, is dead." In verse 24 James says, "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." And later: "For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead" (2:26).

As I previously explain in some detail, James is simply denying there is such a thing as a man justified by faith that is without the fruits of regeneration or works. "Dead" versus life has to do with regeneration and works are the manifest fruits of life. James is looking at justification in its inseparable relationship with regeneration as Paul did in Romans 6. He is not looking at Justification as a separate and complete aspect of salvation as Paul did in Romans 3:24-5:2

The Council fathers continued by saying, "If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema" (Session 6: can. 9).

One is justified by faith alone but not by faith which is alone as there are other things that "accompany salvation" by faith.

Justification by faith alone without works is in conjunction with the new birth which has predisposed his will to repent and beleive in the gospel as the sole hope of salvation.

They simply have no clue to the Biblical doctrines of justification or regeneration.

 

[lakeside]

I hope you don't think that i fall for your twisted man-made interpretation of Scripture, because I don't, There is only "One" interpretation of Scripture and that is the "One ' Interpretation by Christ's Catholic Church , it has always maintained the same Interpretation from the 1st century. Your interpretation isn't any different from the other 30,000 different conflicting interpretations held by you Protestants. All claim that their interpretation is the correct one, not one of your Protestant interpretations is the correct one. Why is it you and others of your Protestant ilk can't show me one verse where Jesus gave your founder the authority to form his or her church? Same goes for the way you interpret the Holy Bible, give me a verse that tells us that your interpretation comes from the Authority of Jesus as He infused His Authority into Apostolic Authority, just one little verse please ??? And, please, no tap dancing around the question as you always do, just a verse please ?

 

[The Biblicist]

I hope you don't think that i fall for your twisted man-made interpretation of Scripture, because I don't, There is only "One" interpretation of Scripture and that is the "One ' Interpretation by Christ's Catholic Church , it has always maintained the same Interpretation from the 1st century. Your interpretation isn't any different from the other 30,000 different conflicting interpretations held by you Protestants. All claim that their interpretation is the correct one, not one of your Protestant interpretations is the correct one. Why is it you and others of your Protestant ilk can't show me one verse where Jesus gave your founder the authority to form his or her church? Same goes for the way you interpret the Holy Bible, give me a verse that tells us that your interpretation comes from the Authority of Jesus as He infused His Authority into Apostolic Authority, just one little verse please ??? And, please, no tap dancing around the question as you always do, just a verse please ?

Your response is typical of all who simply are unable to provide a Biblical response to prove their opponents are wrong. I will be glad to provide and defend the interpretation of scriptures that fully support my position.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

In the above paragraph Rome makes the transition from grace to works by merging regenerative works into the doctrine of justification by faith "without works." As a result they merely perform mental gynastics and in fact are teaching salvation by works not by the Biblical meaning of grace but have made works inclusive of grace.

First it is clear that you haven't percieved what it is you have read. 2nd of all you play dangerously close to falling into the trap that Deitrich Bonhoffer first identified as "Cheap Grace".

Grace without price; grace without cost! And the essence of grace, we suppose, is that the account has been paid in advance; and, because it has been paid, everything can be had for nothing. Since the cost was infinite, the possibilities of using and spending it are infinite. What would grace be, if it were not cheap?
. . . In such a Church the world finds a cheap covering for its sins; no contrition is required, still less any real desire to be delivered from sin. . .
Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner. Grace alone does everything, they say, and so everything can remain as it was before. { p. 42}
. . .
Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, (it is) baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate." { p. 43-4} ...Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock.
Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. . . . Grace is costly because it compels a man to submit to the yoke of Christ and follow him; it is grace because Jesus says: "my yoke is easy and my burden light." { p. 45}

 

[The Biblicist]

First it is clear that you haven't percieved what it is you have read. 2nd of all you play dangerously close to falling into the trap that Deitrich Bonhoffer first identified as "Cheap Grace".

I read it carefully and I have read the Catholic Catechism on this subject. I know what you believe and how you rationalize it. You confuse justification with regeneration and confuse faith with faithfulness and ultimately it is a confusion between grace and works as you come up with a definition of grace that is inclusive of works.

Again, either you did not understand what I said or you didn't read it carefully and just overlooked what I said. Here is what I said:

One is justified by faith alone but not by faith which is alone as there are other things that "accompany salvation" by faith.

Justification by faith alone without works is in conjunction with the new birth which has predisposed his will to repent and beleive in the gospel as the sole hope of salvation.

So your following commentary is a mischaractization of my position. Grace is not cheap as it cost God His only Son but salvation is "freely" mine by grace.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I read it carefully and I have read the Catholic Catechism on this subject. I know what you believe and how you rationalize it. You confuse justification with regeneration and confuse faith with faithfulness and ultimately it is a confusion between grace and works as you come up with a definition of grace that is inclusive of works.

Again, either you did not understand what I said or you didn't read it carefully and just overlooked what I said. Here is what I said:

One is justified by faith alone but not by faith which is alone as there are other things that "accompany salvation" by faith.

Justification by faith alone without works is in conjunction with the new birth which has predisposed his will to repent and beleive in the gospel as the sole hope of salvation.

So your following commentary is a mischaractization of my position.

If then you hold to these positions you stated then there is no argument as we are saying the same thing. And as far as regeneration. We are regenerated we are being regenerated and upon reciept of our glorified bodies, we are entirely regenerated. But don't be decieved believing something intellectually and having a strong feeling about it does nothing for you unless your life is changed by it. Jesus calls us to be followers not couch potatos that get choked up every time our favorite passages are read.
So if you believe as you say

but not by faith which is alone as there are other things that "accompany salvation" by faith.

. I have no argument. However, as I may have mischaracterized your view you certainly micharacterized the Catholic view. You miss understand that works from a catholic perspective are sanctification which is a part of salvation. Works are not the cerimonial rites and the legal wrangleings that jews got caught up in to which Jesus and Paul spoke against. Sanctification is the characteristic of a person moved by the spirit to grow in a faith they already have received. If you had read my response to Jeremiah you would see I have said that a person to do all the things (rites) the church requires but has no faith is no more saved than a man who was never in the church. And as you said faith is not alone nor can it be viewed in a vacuum.